Scanziani v. Hairston
| Decision Date | 28 November 2012 |
| Citation | 100 A.D.3d 1007,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08136,955 N.Y.S.2d 162 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of Toni SCANZIANI, respondent, v. Tonya HAIRSTON, appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Tonya Hairston appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated February 6, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that she had committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, and directed her to comply with the terms of an order of protection of the same court dated February 6, 2012.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 712, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that 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” (Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149).
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), warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 842).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
...the evidence” (Family Ct. Act § 832; see Matter of Jarrett v. Jarrett, 102 A.D.3d 695, 956 N.Y.S.2d 898;Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162;Matter of Daoud v. Daoud, 92 A.D.3d 878, 940 N.Y.S.2d 869;Matter of Mamantov v. Mamantov, 86 A.D.3d 540, 541, 927 N.Y.S.......
-
Tulshi v. Tulshi
...the evidence” (Family Ct. Act § 832; see Matter of Jarrett v. Jarrett, 102 A.D.3d 695, 956 N.Y.S.2d 898;Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162;Matter of Daoud v. Daoud, 92 A.D.3d 878, 940 N.Y.S.2d 869;Matter of Mamantov v. Mamantov, 86 A.D.3d 540, 541, 927 N.Y.S.......
-
Shields v. Brown
...240.26; Family Ct. Act § 812[1]; Matter of Smith v. Amedee, 101 A.D.3d 1033, 1033, 956 N.Y.S.2d 172;Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162;Matter of Cruz v. Rodriguez, 96 A.D.3d 838, 838, 946 N.Y.S.2d 480;Matter of Yalvac v. Yalvac, 83 A.D.3d 853, 854, 920 ......
-
Giresi-Palazzolo v. Palazzolo
...118 A.D.3d 716, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Jarrett v. Jarrett, 102 A.D.3d 695, 956 N.Y.S.2d 898 ; Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and th......