In the Matter of Charles v. Charles, 2004-00064.
| Decision Date | 15 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-00064.,2004-00068. |
| Citation | 21 A.D.3d 487,2005 NY Slip Op 06423,799 N.Y.S.2d 822 |
| Parties | In the Matter of GHISLAINE CHARLES, Respondent, v. CLAUDE L. CHARLES, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of CLAUDE L. CHARLES, Appellant, v. DARIO CHARLES, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order of protection in proceeding No. 1 is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a decretal paragraph finding that aggravating circumstances exist including violent and harassing behavior by the father towards the mother which constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the mother; as so modified, the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order in proceeding No. 2 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Smith v. Antonio, 239 AD2d 509 [1997]; see also De La Cruz v. Colon, 16 AD3d 496 [2005]; Matter of Marino v. Marino, 13 AD3d 537, 537-538 [2004]), and its finding that the father's testimony was incredible is supported by the record. We find no basis to disturb the Family Court's finding that the father failed to establish a prima facie case that the son committed a family offense.
Contrary to the father's contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court's finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances (see Matter of Flascher v. Flascher, 298 AD2d 393 [2002]; Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]). The order of protection is thus modified to include this finding in compliance with Family Court Act § 842 (see Matter of Flascher v. Flascher, supra; Matter of Muller v. Muller, 221 AD2d 635 [1995]).
The evidence established that the father engaged in physical violence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drury v. Drury
...Court's finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances ( see Family Ct. Act § 827[a] [vii]; cf. Matter of Charles v. Charles, 21 A.D.3d 487, 488, 799 N.Y.S.2d 822; Matter of Flascher v. Flascher, 298 A.D.2d 393, 751 N.Y.S.2d 396; Matter of Reilly v. Reilly, 254 A.D.2d 361, 688 N.Y.S.......
-
Tulshi v. Tulshi
...v. Gray, 55 A.D.3d 909, 867 N.Y.S.2d 110;Matter of Rankoth v. Sloan, 44 A.D.3d 863, 863–864, 844 N.Y.S.2d 357;Matter of Charles v. Charles, 21 A.D.3d 487, 799 N.Y.S.2d 822). The Family Court's credibility determinations will not be disturbed if supported by the record ( see Matter of Richar......
-
Kondor v. Kondor
...by the record ( seeFamily Court Act 827[a][vii]; Matter of Harry v. Harry, 85 A.D.3d at 791, 924 N.Y.S.2d 816;Matter of Charles v. Charles, 21 A.D.3d 487, 799 N.Y.S.2d 822). Therefore, we modify the order of protection to include this finding in compliance with Family Court Act § 842 ( see ......
-
Weinraub v. Glen Rauch Securities, Inc.
... ... $32,943.88 in attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with this matter. 73 This figure represents a total of 114.5 hours of legal work by one ... ...