Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Hefley

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

May 15, 2013

In the Matter of Leroy Hefley, respondent,
v.
Booker Tony Favors III, appellant. No. O-25026/11

Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Booker Tony Favors III appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated February 28, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he had committed, inter alia, the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, among other things, to stay away from Leroy Hefley until and including February 24, 2013.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on February 24, 2013, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense, the appeal has not been rendered academic (see e.g. Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599; Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 A.D.3d 888; Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 A.D.3d 387, 388; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 A.D.3d 874).

The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 712; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599; Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 A.D.3d 529). The record supports the Family Court's finding, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the appellant committed an act constituting the family offense of disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812[1]; 832; Penal Law § 240.20[1]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d at 712; Matter of Medranda v Mondelli, 74 A.D.3d 972).

The appellant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.