Lengiewicz v. Lengiewicz
| Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2017–10621,Docket No. O–08169–17 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Malgorzata LENGIEWICZ, Respondent, v. Bogdan LENGIEWICZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
167 A.D.3d 608
89 N.Y.S.3d 241
In the Matter of Malgorzata LENGIEWICZ, Respondent,
v.
Bogdan LENGIEWICZ, Appellant.
2017–10621
Docket No. O–08169–17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—October 15, 2018
December 5, 2018
Abbie C. Shapiro, Mount Sinai, NY, for appellant.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Bogdan Lengiewicz appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Rosann O. Orlando, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 11, 2017. The order of protection, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, directed Bogdan Lengiewicz to stay away from the petitioner and the child Anthony G. for a period up to and including September 11, 2018.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In May 2017, the petitioner filed a family offense petition in Family Court seeking an order of protection against the appellant for herself and her child, alleging that the appellant had committed numerous family offenses against her. After a fact-finding hearing, the court determined that the appellant's conduct constituted harassment in the second degree and disorderly
conduct. The court then issued an order of protection directing that the appellant stay away from the petitioner and the child and refrain from any type of communication with them for a period of one year.
"A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence" ( Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d 717, 718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; see Family Ct Act § 832 ). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court" ( Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d at 718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; see Matter of Pierre v. Dal, 142 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 37 N.Y.S.3d 317 ). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livesey v. Gulick
...482 whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court’ " ( Matter of Lengiewicz v. Lengiewicz, 167 A.D.3d 608, 608, 89 N.Y.S.3d 241, quoting Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d 717, 718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ). The Family Court's determinatio......
-
Mansour v. Mahgoub
...of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court’ " ( Matter of Lengiewicz v. Lengiewicz, 167 A.D.3d 608, 608, 89 N.Y.S.3d 241, quoting Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d 717, 718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; see Matter of Livesey v. Gulick, ......
-
Marin v. Banasco
...of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court" ( Matter of Lengiewicz v. Lengiewicz, 167 A.D.3d 608, 608, 89 N.Y.S.3d 241 ; see Matter of Livesey v. Gulick, 194 A.D.3d at 1047, 149 N.Y.S.3d 479 ). The Family Court's determination as to the c......
-
Levin v. Blum
...objections to the Support Magistrate's determination to impute monthly income to her in the sum of $8,196.68. A support magistrate may 89 N.Y.S.3d 241impute income to a parent based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money, goods, or servic......