Richardson v. Brown
| Decision Date | 12 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. O–25355–16,2018–10613 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Adrienne RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Everly BROWN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
173 A.D.3d 875
104 N.Y.S.3d 132
In the Matter of Adrienne RICHARDSON, Appellant,
v.
Everly BROWN, Respondent.
2018–10613
Docket No. O–25355–16
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—April 2, 2019
June 12, 2019
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
Joshua R. Katz, Kew Gardens, NY, for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens
County (Marilyn L. Zarrello, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 13, 2018. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, in effect, denied the family offense petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was based on an allegation that the respondent committed an act constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree based on a text message sent by the respondent to the petitioner on October 23, 2016, and substituting therefor a provision granting that
branch of the petition; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to petitioner, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for the entry of an appropriate order of protection.
The parties, who were married in 1999, reside on separate floors of the marital residence, along with their two minor children. The petitioner filed a family offense petition dated December 30, 2016, in the Family Court alleging that the respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct and harassment in the second degree. After a hearing, the court determined that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed a family offense against the petitioner, and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
" ‘In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition’ " ( Matter of Bah v. Bah, 112 A.D.3d 921, 921–922, 978 N.Y.S.2d 301, quoting Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v. Johnson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zurich Am. Ins. v. Hereford Ins. Co.
...(see Matter of Social Servs. Empls. Union, Local 371 v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 82 A.D.3d 644, 645, 920 N.Y.S.2d 65 ; 104 N.Y.S.3d 132 Matter of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Health, 46 A.D.3d 1269, 1271, 848 N.Y.S.2d 444 ). Significantly, the jury's determination that Tapia ......
-
Breier v. Breier
...of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record’ " ( Matter of Richardson v. Brown, 173 A.D.3d 875, 876, 104 N.Y.S.3d 132, quoting Matter of Fruchthandler v. Fruchthandler, 161 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 78 N.Y.S.3d 214 [internal quotation marks omitted]......
-
Cook v. Berehowsky
...the same" ( Penal Law § 240.26[1] ). "The intent element may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances" ( Matter of Richardson v. Brown, 173 A.D.3d 875, 877, 104 N.Y.S.3d 132 ). Here, the mother established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the father had committed the famil......
-
Good v. Ricardo
...Court to consider modification of his child support obligation (see Family Ct. Act § 451[3][b][i], [ii] ; Matter of Regan v. Regan, 173 A.D.3d at 875, 100 N.Y.S.3d 545 ; Matter of Walsh v. Walsh, 154 A.D.3d 767, 768, 61 N.Y.S.3d 673 ; Matter of Thomas v. Fosmire, 138 A.D.3d at 1007–1008, 30......