Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Scioscia v. Scioscia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 1, 2011

89 A.D.3d 739; 931 N.Y.2d 892

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Hohn v. Guirand (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Hohn v. Guirand (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Samida v. Samida (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Samida v. Samida (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Saldivar v. Cabrera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Saldivar v. Cabrera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Martinez v. Aviles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Martinez v. Aviles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 19, 2011, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow *740from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Willis v Rhinehart, 76 AD3d 641, 642 [2010]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]).

“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 unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Bibolova v Radu, 82 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2011]; see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010] ). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933, 934 [2011]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011] ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Hall, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.