Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Grossman v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 7, 1997

238 A.D.2d 339; 656 N.Y.S.2d 935

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Richardson v. Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Malfetano v. Parker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Charlene J.R. v. Walter A.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Smith v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Leslie H. v. Antonio C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Cindy L. S. v. David L. S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Monique W. v. Kim G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Betz v. Betz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

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

—In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Dennis Grossman appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated September 14, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the wife’s petition for an order of protection and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 3, 1995, which modified the order of protection so as to provide him with certain limited visitation but declined to award him expanded visitation.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

While the order of protection has expired, the husband’s appeal from that order is not academic since there are enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that he has committed a family offense (see, Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862; Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767). However, contrary to the husband’s contentions, the Family Court did not demonstrate any bias or commit any errors warranting reversal.

We find no merit to the husband’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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