McCarthy v. Braiman
| Decision Date | 22 December 1986 |
| Citation | 510 N.Y.S.2d 3,125 A.D.2d 572 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Sharon McCARTHY, Appellant, v. Arthur BRAIMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stephan J. Wing, Co. Atty., Poughkeepsie (Keith P. Byron, of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel Millman, Garden City, for respondent.
Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and RUBIN, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law article 3-A), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated February 21, 1985, which dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We cannot say that the findings of the Family Court were not supported by the credible evidence and that a different determination is warranted (Strauf v. Ettson Enterprises, 106 A.D.2d 737, 483 N.Y.S.2d 772). The greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered (Arnold v. State of New York, 108 A.D.2d 1021, 486 N.Y.S.2d 94, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 723, 492 N.Y.S.2d 29, 481 N.E.2d 569). Moreover, the petitioner's testimony is riddled with inconsistencies and it is clear that the daughter has been influenced by her mother's hostility towards the respondent since the daughter never informed the respondent of her move to Florida, never gave him her new address and did not even inform him of her upcoming marriage, much less invite him to her wedding.
The evidence indicates that the daughter has actively abandoned her father, the respondent herein, by her renunciation of his chosen religious affiliation, and of his surname (see, Cohen v. Schnepf, 94 A.D.2d 783, 463 N.Y.S.2d 29). Moreover, her behavior towards him whenever they would meet was so hostile as to justify his belief of her abandonment of him, and his desire to avoid the relationship in the future (see, Matter of Parker v. Stage, 43 N.Y.2d 128, 400 N.Y.S.2d 794, 371 N.E.2d 513).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuechenmeister v. Kuechenmeister
...unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Binns v. Boyd, 63 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 885 N.Y.S.2d 84 ; Matter of McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3 ).Here, in support of her petition, the mother presented prima facie evidence that the father willfully violated the s......
-
Mahlab v. Mahlab
...29 N.Y.2d 188, 193, 324 N.Y.S.2d 71, 272 N.E.2d 567; Matter Drago v. Drago, 138 A.D.2d 704, 526 N.Y.S.2d 518; Matter of McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3). ...
-
Erie County Dept. of Social Services (Cheryl P.) v. Theodore D.
...hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered" (Matter of McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3). Order unanimously affirmed without ...
-
Commissioner of Social Services on Behalf of Jones v. Jones-Gamble
...findings are entitled to great deference (Matter of Karrie B. [Paul H.], 207 A.D.2d 1002, 617 N.Y.S.2d 663; Matter of McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3) as the Hearing Examiner is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and evidence offered (see, Ma......