Matter of Tartaglia, 5 N.Y.3d 711 (NY 2005).

cited Cited "see" Matter of Boisvenue v. Gamboa

N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high

V Diana TT. , 127 AD3d 1514, 1515 [2015]; see Matter of Anson v Anson , 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).

discussed Cited "see" King v. Chester

N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high

Furthermore, “[g]iven the superior position of Family Court to evaluate the testimony and assess the credibility of witnesses,” we give great deference to its determination where it has adequate support in the record (Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2014]; see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Matter of Wolcott v Cook, 265 AD2d 748, 750 [1999]).

discussed Cited "see" King v. Chester

N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high

Furthermore, “[g]iven the superior position of Family Court to evaluate the testimony and assess the credibility of witnesses,” we give great deference to its determination where it has adequate support in the record (Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2014]; see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Matter of Wolcott v Cook, 265 AD2d 748, 750 [1999]).

discussed Cited "see" Matter of Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Assn. (2×)

N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high

Thus, under the statute, the qualified voters include not just members, but also those “persons . . . who have been stated attendants on divine worship . . . and have regularly contributed . . . financial support” to the CBA during the year preceding the meeting (id.; see Sillah v Tanvir, 18 AD3d 223, 224 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Islamic Ctr. of Harrison v Islamic Science Found., 262 AD2d 362, 363 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 752 [1999]).

discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Smith

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high

Thus, “Family Court was required to consider the best interests of the child [ren] by reviewing such factors as ‘maintaining stability for the child[ren], the child[ren]’s wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent’s past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child [ren]’s overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent’ ” (Kaczor v Kaczor, 12 AD3d 956, 958 [2004] [citation omitted], quoting Matter of Smith v Miller, 4 AD3d 697, 698 [2004]; see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603,…

discussed Cited "see" Bush v. Stout

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high

Relevant factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interest include “maintaining stability for the child[ ], the child[’s] wishes, the home environment with each parent, each parent’s past performance and relative fitness, each parent’s ability to guide and provide for the child[’s] overall well-being and the willingness of each to foster a positive relationship between the child[ ] and the other parent” (Matter of Kilmartin v Kilmartin, 44 AD3d 1099, 1102 [2007]; see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).

discussed Cited "see" Magin v. Leclaire

N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high

In any event, although the facility superintendent is directed to designate as a review officer a staff member of the rank of lieutenant or higher, we perceive no impropriety in the designation here inasmuch as it is within the superintendent’s discretion to designate “some other employee” (7 NYCRR 251-2.1; see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).

discussed Cited "see" Eck v. Eck

N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high

Although our authority in custody matters is as broad as that entrusted to Family Court, “[g]iven Family Court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, its [factual] findings in modifying an existing custody arrangement are afforded great deference and will not be set aside unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Kemp v Kemp, 19 AD3d 748, 750 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]; see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 604 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]; Matter of De Losh v De Losh, 235 AD2d 851, 853 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 813 [1…

discussed Cited "see" In re Daniel BB.

N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high

As this showing is evaluated “ ‘in totality and as of the time of the representation’ ” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000], quoting People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; accord Matter of Brenden O., 20 AD3d 722, 723 [2005]), despite a failure to object to the polygraph results, respondent’s counsel conducted a thorough examination of all witnesses, questioned the validity of the polygraph results during her closing remarks and vigorously advocated for respondent (see Matter of Anson v Anson, 20 AD3d 603, 605 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).

discussed Cited "see" Kromer v. County of Onondaga

N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high

Defendants established that decedent did not contact them during the two-week period between the alleged assault/rape and the murder, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether any acts of defendants lulled decedent “into a false sense of security, induced [her] to either relax [her] own vigilance or forego other viable avenues of protection, and thereby placed [decedent] in a worse position than [she] would have been in had defendants] never assumed the underlying duty” (Finch v County of Saratoga, 305 AD2d 771, 773 [2003]; see Farley v County of Erie, 16 AD3d 1134, 1136 [2005…

discussed Cited "see" Blumenfeld v. DeLuca

N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high

Moreover, the plaintiffs established that the subject land was “usually cultivated or improved” (RPAPL 522 [1]; see generally Gore v Cambareri, 303 AD2d 551 , 552 [2003], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]) consistent with its character, condition, location and potential uses (see e.g.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gunthorpe v. Cathey

N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low

The record establishes that while neither the mother nor the father was considered an unfit parent, neither was particularly well-suited to assume sole responsibility for the child’s care (see Matter of Jiminez v Jiminez, 301 AD2d 971, 972 [2003]; see also Matter of Neail v Deshane, 19 AD3d 758, 758 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Davis v. Maloney

N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence low

It does not avail defendant to assert that she and her husband ultimately decided not to follow through with the business of growing and selling hay. “[T]he use and purpose test must be employed on the basis of the homeowners’ intentions at the time of the injury underlying the action . . . .” (Allen v Fiori, 277 AD2d 674, 675 [2000]; compare Crowningshield v Kim, 19 AD3d 975 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005] [uncontradicted that barn, undergoing roof replacement at time of accident, was used for mixed commercial and residential purposes, entitling defendants to homeowner exemption eve…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roe v. Roe

N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low

Taken as a whole, the record is sufficient to support this conclusion (see Matter of Lopez v Robinson, supra; Matter of Brady v Schermerhorn, supra; Matter of Graham v Graham, supra; Matter of Mehaffy v Mehaffy, supra; Matter of Drew v Gillin, 17 AD3d 719 [2005]; Matter of Adams v Franklin, 9 AD3d 544 [2004]; Matter of Weeden v Weeden, 256 AD2d 831, 833 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999]; Matter of Jones v Payne, 113 AD2d 968 [1985]; see also Matter of Neail v Deshane, 19 AD3d 758 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]).