In the Matter of Ford v. Pitts
Decision Date | 06 June 2006 |
Docket Number | 2005-07627.,2005-07628. |
Citation | 30 A.D.3d 419,817 N.Y.S.2d 332,2006 NY Slip Op 04420 |
Parties | In the Matter of SHALEMA FORD, Respondent, v. GLORIA PITTS, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of GLORIA PITTS, Appellant, v. DWIGHT D. FORD, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing proved by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]) that the appellant had committed acts constituting disorderly conduct, menacing, and harassment warranting the issuance of the order of protection against her and in favor of the petitioner-respondent in proceeding No. 1 (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 125.15, 240.20, 240.25; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d 375 [2004]; Matter of Phillips v Laland, supra). As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Pearsall v Martin-Zenick, 267 AD2d 240 [1999]; Matter of Strully v Schwartz, 255 AD2d 593 [1998]). Since its determination is not against the weight of the credible evidence, there is no basis for this Court to disturb it (see Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230 AD2d 746 [1996]).
For the same reasons, the Family Court properly dismissed the appellant's petition for an order of protection upon determining that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent in proceeding No. 2 had committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment or assault (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Strully v Schwartz, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ciccone v. Ciccone
...the Family Court is confronted with issues of credibility, its findings are accorded great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 A.D.3d 419, 420, 817 N.Y.S.2d 332; Matter of Wissink v. Wissink, 13 A.D.3d 461, 462, 787 N.Y.S.2d 60; Matter of St. Denis v. St. Denis, 1 A.D.3d 370,......
-
Clarke–Golding v. Golding
...( seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 812[1], 832; Penal Law § 120.00; Matter of Gray v. Gray, 55 A.D.3d 909, 910, 867 N.Y.S.2d 110;Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 A.D.3d 419, 817 N.Y.S.2d 332;Matter of Strully v. Schwartz, 255 A.D.2d 593, 680 N.Y.S.2d 871). However, a preponderance of the credible evidence a......
-
Greener v. Greener
...Kraus, 26 A.D.3d 494, 495, 809 N.Y.S.2d 471), and that determination is entitled to great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 A.D.3d 419, 420, 817 N.Y.S.2d 332; Matter of Wissink v. Wissink, 13 A.D.3d 461, 462, 787 N.Y.S.2d 60; Matter of St. Denis v. St. Denis, 1 A.D.3d 370, ......
-
Penn v. Johnson
...are entitled to great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Halper v. Halper, 61 A.D.3d 686, 687, 875 N.Y.S.2d 916; Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 A.D.3d 419, 420, 817 N.Y.S.2d 332). Contrary to the appellant's contention, there was legally sufficient evidence that he committed acts constituting th......