In the Matter of Barnes v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 09 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-05781.,Docket No. O-20309-05/07D.,Docket No. O-20309-05/07E,2007-05781. |
| Citation | 863 N.Y.S.2d 758,54 A.D.3d 755,2008 NY Slip Op 6827 |
| Parties | In the Matter of DELCAME BARNES, Appellant, v. RICHARD BARNES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Where the Family Court is primarily presented with issues of credibility, its factual determinations are afforded great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Hijri v Fargaly, 49 AD3d 737 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]; Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40 AD3d 770 [2007]; Matter of Belgrave v Mingo, 28 AD3d 479 [2006]). Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the respondent violated the subject order of protection by making a threatening telephone call to the petitioner. The court's determination that the petitioner had failed to establish that this violation occurred was based solely upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Belgrave v Mingo, 28 AD3d 479 [2006]). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to offer sufficient proof to establish any other violation of the order of protection. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed both the petition alleging a violation of the order of protection, and the separate petition to modify the conditions of the order of protection by extending its term.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Argila v. Edelman
...A.D.3d 1032, 1032, 80 N.Y.S.3d 140 ; Matter of Januszka v. Januszka, 90 A.D.3d 1253, 1253, 934 N.Y.S.2d 622 ; Matter of Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 755–756, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758 ). The mother's related contention, that the court improperly excluded certain recordings from evidence pursuant......
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...her was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties, and is supported by the record ( see Matter of Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 756, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758; Matter of Wilkins v. Wilkins, 47 A.D.3d 823, 824, 850 N.Y.S.2d 538; Matter of Hall v. Hall, 45 A.D.3d 842, 843, 845 N.Y......
-
Tulshi v. Tulshi
...Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d 689, 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655;Matter of Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758;Matter of Belgrave v. Mingo, 28 A.D.3d 479, 479, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579). Here, the mother filed a family offense petitio......
-
A.G.S. v. D.S.
...preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed acts that would constitute a family offense; In the Matter of Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2d Dept 2008], where the family court's determination that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof based solely ......