Quintana v. Quintana
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- 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)
- Matter of Y.M.R.P. v. B.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Erin C. v. Walid M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Campbell v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Sperling v. Sperling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Sperling v. Sperling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kaur v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kaur v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Medranda v. Mondelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Sblendorio v. D'Agostino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Anita L. v. Damon N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Hassett v. Hassett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Phillips v. Laland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Victoria C. v. Higinio C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Dabbene v. Dabbene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Muldavin v. Muldavin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
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
Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered March 20, 1996, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner’s application for an order of protection and, inter alia, directed respondent to stay away from petitioner and their marital residence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court’s findings of harassment and attempted assault are supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent, among other things, hit petitioner with a thick piece of rubber, threw her against the wall, and dragged her out of bed and onto the floor. Such "oifensive and frightening” conduct justified the disposition directing respondent to stay away from the marital residence as reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection and to eradicate the root of the family disturbance (Matter of Amy Cohen L. v Howard N. L., 222 AD2d 677; Merola v Merola, 146 AD2d 611). There is no merit to respondent’s contention that Family Court was required to hold a separate dispositional hearing where the court did receive and consider the type of evidence that would have been admitted at a dispositional hearing had the court formally chosen to bifurcate the matter (Family Ct Act § 835). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.