Matter of E.O. v. O.O.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of E.O. v O.O.
2026 NY Slip Op 02928
May 12, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of E.O., Appellant,
v
O.O., Respondent.
Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026
Docket No. O-10573/24|Appeal No. 6590|Case No. 2024-07854|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Mendez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Hagler, JJ.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Teresa J. Grogan, Referee), entered on or about December 13, 2024, which, following a fact-finding hearing, found petitioner failed to establish respondent committed any family offense, dismissed the petition, and vacated the temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly dismissed the family offense petition, as petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in petitioner's favor (see Matter of Tawanna R. v Michael E.G., 226 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2024]). We find no basis to disturb the
court's findings that respondent was more credible than petitioner (see Matter of Sherida L. v Hoggarth S., 237 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2025]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 12, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of E.O. v O.O.
2026 NY Slip Op 02928
May 12, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of E.O., Appellant,
v
O.O., Respondent.
Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026
Docket No. O-10573/24|Appeal No. 6590|Case No. 2024-07854|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Mendez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Hagler, JJ.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Teresa J. Grogan, Referee), entered on or about December 13, 2024, which, following a fact-finding hearing, found petitioner failed to establish respondent committed any family offense, dismissed the petition, and vacated the temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly dismissed the family offense petition, as petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in petitioner's favor (see Matter of Tawanna R. v Michael E.G., 226 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2024]). We find no basis to disturb the
court's findings that respondent was more credible than petitioner (see Matter of Sherida L. v Hoggarth S., 237 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2025]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 12, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of E.O. v O.O.
2026 NY Slip Op 02928
May 12, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of E.O., Appellant,
v
O.O., Respondent.
Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026
Docket No. O-10573/24|Appeal No. 6590|Case No. 2024-07854|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Mendez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Hagler, JJ.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Teresa J. Grogan, Referee), entered on or about December 13, 2024, which, following a fact-finding hearing, found petitioner failed to establish respondent committed any family offense, dismissed the petition, and vacated the temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly dismissed the family offense petition, as petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in petitioner's favor (see Matter of Tawanna R. v Michael E.G., 226 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2024]). We find no basis to disturb the
court's findings that respondent was more credible than petitioner (see Matter of Sherida L. v Hoggarth S., 237 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2025]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 12, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of E.O. v O.O.
2026 NY Slip Op 02928
May 12, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of E.O., Appellant,
v
O.O., Respondent.
Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026
Docket No. O-10573/24|Appeal No. 6590|Case No. 2024-07854|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Mendez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Hagler, JJ.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Teresa J. Grogan, Referee), entered on or about December 13, 2024, which, following a fact-finding hearing, found petitioner failed to establish respondent committed any family offense, dismissed the petition, and vacated the temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly dismissed the family offense petition, as petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed any acts warranting an order of protection in petitioner's favor (see Matter of Tawanna R. v Michael E.G., 226 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2024]). We find no basis to disturb the
court's findings that respondent was more credible than petitioner (see Matter of Sherida L. v Hoggarth S., 237 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2025]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 12, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.