Reisz v. Reisz

• Decision Date: 27 December 1999
• Citation: 700 N.Y.S.2d 852
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,087 In the Matter of Rachel REISZ, respondent, v. Herschel REISZ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 852

700 N.Y.S.2d 852

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,087

In the Matter of Rachel REISZ, respondent, v. Herschel REISZ, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 1999.

Mallow, Konstam & Hager, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Abe H. Konstam and Aliza Goldring of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Wachsman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.), dated December 21, 1998, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied his motion to vacate an order of protection entered against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that resolution of questions of credibility and the factual findings made by a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are against the weight of the credible evidence (see, Yasuda Bank & Trust Co. v. Oree, 233 A.D.2d 391, 650 N.Y.S.2d 590; McCray v. Petrini, 212 A.D.2d 676, 622 N.Y.S.2d 815; Billings v. Southside Hosp., 122 A.D.2d 101, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1019). On the record before us, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court's determination that the husband was properly served with a copy of the petition.

MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, McGINITY and SMITH, JJ., concur.