Platsky v. Platsky
| Decision Date | 31 March 1997 |
| Citation | 655 N.Y.S.2d 650,237 A.D.2d 610 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Lilly PLATSKY, Respondent, v. Henry A. PLATSKY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lawrence A. Salvato, New York City, for appellant.
Maryellen Weinberg, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P, and THOMPSON, ALTMAN and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Henry A. Platsky appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Cordova, J.), dated April 11, 1995, which, after a hearing, found that he had committed acts constituting disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree, directed him not to assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger, or engage in disorderly conduct toward Lillian Platsky and excluded him from her home.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of protection as directed the appellant not to assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger, or engage in disorderly conduct toward Lillian Platsky and excluded him from the marital home is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed family offenses is not academic merely because the order of protection has expired (see, Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568; see also, Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250). The evidence presented at the hearing presented issues of fact for the Family Court to resolve, and we find no reason to interfere with the court's credibility determinations (see, Matter of Bart v. Bart, 219 A.D.2d 710, 631 N.Y.S.2d 542). Moreover, we find no merit to the appellant's challenges to various evidentiary rulings.
Although the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed family offenses is not academic (see, Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, supra), the expiration of the order of protection renders academic the appellant's challenge to the dispositional proceedings (see, Matter of Ricardo R., 220 A.D.2d 431, 632 N.Y.S.2d 472; Matter of Alice C. v. Joseph C., 212 A.D.2d 698, 623 N.Y.S.2d 152).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittemore v. Lloyd
...is not academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from such an adjudication (see, Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d The Family Court erred when it found that the appellant......
-
Cindy L.S. v. v. David L.S.
...N.E.2d 250; Betz v. Betz, 241 A.D.2d 519, 661 N.Y.S.2d 534; Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339, 656 N.Y.S.2d 935; Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650; Tibichrani v. Debs, 230 A.D.2d 746, 646 N.Y.S.2d 360; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568). Ho......
-
Campbell v. Desir
...of the order of protection renders academic the appellant's challenge to the dispositional proceedings (see, Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650; Matter of Alice C. v. Joseph C., 212 A.D.2d 698, 623 N.Y.S.2d 152). Review of the record reveals no basis to disturb t......
-
Dendy v. Bonelli
...factual issue for the court to resolve (see, Matter of Campbell v. Desir, 251 A.D.2d 402, 672 N.Y.S.2d 818; Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 611, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650). As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to grea......