Grossman v. Grossman, 1
| Decision Date | 07 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 238 A.D.2d 339,656 N.Y.S.2d 935 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Eileen GROSSMAN, Respondent, v. Dennis GROSSMAN, Appellant (Proceeding). In the Matter of Dennis GROSSMAN, Appellant, v. Eileen GROSSMAN, Respondent (Proceeding). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dennis Grossman, Oceanside, appellant pro se.
Eileen Grossman, Forest Hills, respondent pro se.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Dennis Grossman appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated September 14, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the wife's petition for an order of protection and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 3, 1995, which modified the order of protection so as to provide him with certain limited visitation but declined to award him expanded visitation.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
While the order of protection has expired, the husband's appeal from that order is not academic since there are enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that he has committed a family offense (see, Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568). However, contrary to the husband's contentions, the Family Court did not demonstrate any bias or commit any errors warranting reversal.
We find no merit to the husband's remaining contentions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...thereby deprived her of a fair hearing ( see Matter of Jeannie B. v. Roger D., 33 A.D.3d 994, 824 N.Y.S.2d 332;Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935; Matter of Murdock v. Murdock, 183 A.D.2d 769, 583 N.Y.S.2d 501; cf. Matter of Carlos P., 12 A.D.3d 679, 784 N.Y.S.......
-
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang
...80 A.D.3d 32, 44–45, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149; Matter of Jeannie B. v. Roger D., 33 A.D.3d 994, 824 N.Y.S.2d 332; Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935). To the extent that the father raises an issue on appeal regarding his written application for an apportionment of the ......
-
B., In re
...potential future consequences may flow (see, Matter of Eddie E., 219 A.D.2d 719, 631 N.Y.S.2d 745; see also, Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d The Family Court's findings of neglect in this case were ......
-
Betz v. Betz, Matter of
...768, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568; Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250; see also, Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935). However, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's finding that the appellant committed a family offense ag......