Savas v. Bruen
| Decision Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2015-00343, Docket No. O-43-13/13A. |
| Citation | 31 N.Y.S.3d 149,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03512,139 A.D.3d 737 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Joelle SAVAS, respondent, v. Daniel Joseph BRUEN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
139 A.D.3d 737
31 N.Y.S.3d 149
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03512
In the Matter of Joelle SAVAS, respondent,
v.
Daniel Joseph BRUEN, appellant.
2015-00343, Docket No. O-43-13/13A.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 4, 2016.
Arleen Lewis, Blauvelt, N.Y., for appellant.
Lynn J. Brustein–Kampel, P.C., New City, N.Y., for respondent.
Jeffrey Schonbrun, New City, N.Y., attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, BETSY BARROS, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of protection of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (IDV Part) (Victor J. Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated December 17, 2014. The order of protection, upon a decision of that court dated December 1, 2014, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and violated a temporary order of protection, directed the appellant, inter alia, to participate in a batterer's education program and pay the costs thereof and to pay $7,500 in attorney's fees to the attorney for the petitioner in monthly installments of $312.50.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, alleging that the appellant committed harassment in the first or second degrees during an alleged altercation that occurred on January 13, 2013. On January 17, 2013, a temporary order of protection was issued in favor of the petitioner and against the appellant, requiring the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from her and refrain from harassing her. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging that the appellant violated the temporary order of protection by following her in his car on February 21, 2013. After a fact-finding hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and violated the temporary order of protection. After a dispositional hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order of protection in favor of the petitioner. The order of protection, among other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frimer v. Frimer
...the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 737, 738, 31 N.Y.S.3d 149 ; see Matter of Masciello v. Masciello, 130 A.D.3d at 626, 12 N.Y.S.3d 299 ; Matter of Bessent v. Bessent, 113 A.D.3d ......
-
M.B. v. L.T.
...of Charrat v. Jeanty, 146 A.D.3d 947, 45 N.Y.S.3d 554 ; Matter of Nunez v. Diaz, 145 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 737, 31 N.Y.S.3d 149 ). Here, there is no basis in the record to disturb the Supreme Court's credibility determinations. Contrary to the fa......
-
Shemtov v. Shemtov
...v. Jaffe, 44 A.D.3d 825, 826, 844 N.Y.S.2d 97 ; Bowie v. Bowie, 182 A.D.2d 1049, 1050–1051, 583 N.Y.S.2d 54 ; cf. Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d at 737, 31 N.Y.S.3d 149 ; Lundgren v. Lundgren, 127 A.D.3d at 941, 7 N.Y.S.3d 393 ...
-
Crenshaw v. Thorpe-Crenshaw
...the family offenses of harassment in the first and second degrees (see Penal Law §§ 240.25, 240.26[1] ; Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 737, 738, 31 N.Y.S.3d 149 ; Matter of Kiani v. Kiani, 134 A.D.3d 1036, 1037–1038, 22 N.Y.S.3d 520 ; Matter of Konstatine v. Konstatine, 107 A.D.3d 994......