Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S.
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of N.V. v. A.J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Rosa N. v. Luis F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Annissa D. v. Martha D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Annissa D. v. Martha D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Dennis S. v. Tanya P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Smith v. Rygiel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Rhina M.M. v. Sandy M.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Marisela N. v. Lacy M.S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Zakeima M.B. v. Wesley B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Zakeima M.B. v. Wesley B. (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
A fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832), including petitioner’s testimony, supports the court’s finding that respondent had committed acts that constitute the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Fenal Law § 240.26 [3]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 841). There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]).
The order of protection is valid despite the lack of a dispositional hearing. “There is no explicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under Family Court Act article 8” (Matter of Hazel P.R. v Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [1st Dept 2006]). In addition, respondent never demanded, or objected to the lack of, such a hearing (see Matter of Tonya B. v Matthew B., 90 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, since there is no other legal remedy available for the harassment proved against respondent and she “does not suggest any remedy other than issuance of an order of protection, a separate dispositional hearing would have served no purpose” (Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W, 278 AD2d 177, 177-178 [1st Dept 2000]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.