Griffith v. Joseph
| Decision Date | 12 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2018–04892,Docket No. O–14954–17 |
| Citation | 100 N.Y.S.3d 546 (Mem),173 A.D.3d 868 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Dana GRIFFITH, Respondent, v. Brendon JOSEPH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
173 A.D.3d 868
100 N.Y.S.3d 546 (Mem)
In the Matter of Dana GRIFFITH, Respondent,
v.
Brendon JOSEPH, Appellant.
2018–04892
Docket No. O–14954–17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—April 29, 2019
June 12, 2019
Karen Elizabeth Morth, New York, NY, for appellant.
Joel Borenstein, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Brendon Joseph appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Javier E. Vargas, J.), dated March 28, 2018. The order of protection, upon a finding that Brendon Joseph committed the family offense of harassment in the first degree, made after a fact-finding hearing, directed Brendon Joseph, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including March 27, 2019.
ORDERED that upon the appeal from the order of protection, the finding that Brendon Joseph committed the family offense of harassment in the first degree is vacated and a finding that Brendon Joseph committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree is made; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In May 2017, the petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had committed, inter alia, the family offenses of harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, and criminal mischief. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the appellant had committed the family offense of harassment in the first degree. The court issued an order of protection directing the appellant,
inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including March 27, 2019.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on March 27, 2019, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lederman v. Lederman
...that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses’ " ( Matter of Griffith v. Joseph, 173 A.D.3d 868, 868–869, 100 N.Y.S.3d 546, quoting Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 59, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).Here, we agree with the f......
- Fleming v. McCloskey
- Regan v. Regan, 2018–07356