Parameswar v. Parameswar
| Decision Date | 07 August 2013 |
| Citation | 109 A.D.3d 473,970 N.Y.S.2d 793,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05574 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jayasree S. PARAMESWAR, respondent, v. Krishna PARAMESWAR, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Krishna Parameswar appeals from an order of protectionof the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated June 8, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree (two offenses) and disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Jayasree S. Parameswar until and including June 7, 2013.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on June 7, 2013, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense, the appeal has not been rendered academic ( see e.g. Matter of Hefley v. Favors, 106 A.D.3d 909, 965 N.Y.S.2d 177;Matter of Wallace v. Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711;Matter of DeSouza–Brown v. Brown, 38 A.D.3d 888, 831 N.Y.S.2d 332).
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Thomas v. Thomas, 72 A.D.3d 834, 835, 898 N.Y.S.2d 495). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court ( see Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885;Matter of Kraus v. Kraus, 26 A.D.3d 494, 495, 809 N.Y.S.2d 471). The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record ( see Matter of Kanterakis v. Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d 784, 785, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890;Matter of Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 755, 948 N.Y.S.2d 673).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct ( seePenal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Family Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Dana F. (In re Zana C.)
...Act § 1012[f][i][B] ; Matter of Anastasia L.-D. [Ronald D.], 113 A.D.3d 685, 686, 978 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; Matter of Matthew M. [Fatima M.], 109 A.D.3d at 473, 970 N.Y.S.2d 271 ; Matter of Delehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 A.D.3d 668, 669, 939 N.Y.S.2d 570 ; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 A.D.3d at 949, 880 N.......
-
Pierre v. Dal
...(Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 673, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 ; Matter of Parameswar v. Parameswar, 109 A.D.3d 473, 474, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 ). In making an initial custody or visitation determination, the court must consider what arrangement is in the best interest......
-
Messana v. Messana
...evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Saldivar v. Cabrera, 109 A.D.3d 831, 971 N.Y.S.2d 310;Matter of Parameswar v. Parameswar, 109 A.D.3d 473, 474, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793;Matter of Bazante v. Bazante, 107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483;Matter of Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 755, 948......
-
Kiani v. Kiani
...1178, 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895 ), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Matter of Parameswar v. Parameswar, 109 A.D.3d 473, 474, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 ; Matter of Hagopian v. Hagopian, 66 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 887 N.Y.S.2d 682 ). The record shows that, during the incident......
-
Attorney conduct
...their status as beneiciaries under the incapacitated individual’s will. Oyster Bay v. 55 Motor Avenue Co., LLC, et al. , 109 A.D.3d 549, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 (2d Dept. 2013). Disqualiication of town’s counsel was warranted in condemnation proceedings where property owners established that attor......
-
Table of cases
...Corp. v. Landau, 12 N.Y.2d 362, 239 N.Y.S.2d 865 (1963), § 12:10 Oyster Bay v. 55 Motor Avenue Co., LLC, et al., 109 A.D.3d 549, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 (2d Dept. 2013), §18:70 Ozugowski v. City of New York , 90 A.D.3d 875, 935 N.Y.S.2d 613 (2d Dept. 2011), § 16:110 P Pacheco v. Kushner et al. , 8......
-
Attorney conduct
...their status as beneiciaries under the incapacitated individual’s will. Oyster Bay v. 55 Motor Avenue Co., LLC, et al. , 109 A.D.3d 549, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 (2d Dept. 2013). Disqualiication of town’s counsel was warranted in condemnation proceedings where property owners established that attor......
-
Attorney conduct
...that firm rented space from the plaintiffs’ attorney’s current firm. Oyster Bay v. 55 Motor Avenue Co., LLC, et al., 109 A.D.3d 549, 970 N.Y.S.2d 793 (2d Dept. 2013). Disqualification of town’s counsel was warranted in condemnation proceedings where property owners established that attorney......