Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Leffingwell v. Leffingwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 18, 1982

86 A.D.2d 929; 448 N.Y.S.2d 799; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15612

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

M.T. v. E.T. (NYC Family Court 2007)
Matter of M.T. v. E.T. (Nassau Family Court 2007)
V.C. v. H.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
V.C. v. H.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Cohen L. v. Howard N. L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Jane Y. v. Joseph Y. (NYC Family Court 1984)
Jeff M. v. Christine N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Jeff M. v. Christine N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Barcia v. Barcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Miriam M. v. Warren M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Barbara E. v. John E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Fiore v. Fiore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Kristine Z. v. Anthony C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Victoria C. v. Higinio C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Mitchell v. Muhammed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Mongiardo v. Mongiardo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Brown v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Merola v. Merola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Griset, J.), entered August 17, 1981, which granted petitioner’s *930application for a protective order. Petitioner initiated the instant proceeding in Family Court alleging that the respondent husband had engaged in conduct which constituted harrassment. Petitioner contended that respondent abused her physically and verbally, drank excessively, and came home at late hours disturbing her peace and quiet. The court found that a family offense had been committed by respondent and granted petitioner an order of protection which required that respondent: (a) refrain from any violent, offensive conduct towards the petitioner; (b) refrain from consumption of alcoholic beverages in the marital residence; (c) refrain from entering the home in an intoxicated state; (d) remain out only during the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Monday, Friday and Saturday nights; (e) vacate his home. Respondent urges that a fair preponderance of the evidence did not support the issuance of an order of protection and that the conditions of the order are unreasonable and not in conformity with section 842 of the Family Court Act. We find that the record amply supports the finding that a family offense did in fact occur. Section 842 of the Family Court Act sets out the conditions which may be granted under an order of protection. The major criterion of the reasonableness of conditions imposed is whether they are likely to be helpful in eradicating the root of family disturbance. Where, as here, the husband is removed from the household, the curfew imposed on him on Fridays and Saturdays is not relevant to forestalling conduct deemed offensive and which would be the source of disturbance and offense to his spouse were he in the home. To that extent, there must be a modification. Order modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of striking the condition imposing a curfew on respondent, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur; Levine, J., not taking part.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.