At page 808 Deference to family court credibility and contempt findings10 citing cases
- Matter of King P. (James Q.), 245 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2026).publishedEven when a court does not strictly follow procedural protections, a party must still register an objection in order to preserve the claim for review ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 808-809 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Te…
- Matter of Tiyani AA. (Yani Z.), 232 A.D.3d 1147 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2024).publishedNeither she nor her trial counsel raised that issue before Family Court by registering an objection to the court's ruling or [*2]seeking an adjournment so that the mother could appear in person, however, and the argument is therefore unpre…
- Matter of Steven OO. v. Amber PP., 227 A.D.3d 1154 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2024).publishedMatter of Joseph XX. v Jah-Rai YY. , ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 00950, *2 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Nelson UU. v Carmen VV. , 202 AD3d 1414, 1416 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 808 [3d Dept 2020]).
- Matter of Autumn B. v. Jasmine A., 220 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).published Although the in-person visitation is limited, the court's schedule permits the father biweekly access to the child and affords him the much needed opportunity to develop a relationship with the child during this significant transition in t…
- Matter of Linda UU. v. Dana VV., 212 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).publishedThus, according due deference to Family Court's credibility determinations, we do not find that Family Court abused its discretion in concluding that the grandmother did not establish a willful violation of the order ( see Matter of Tamika…
- Matter of Akela Q. v. Jack Q., 194 A.D.3d 1134 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedThe father's contention that Supreme Court was biased and effectively predetermined the issue of custody based upon comments made by the court prior to the hearing is unpreserved ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 808-809…
- Matter of Harley K. v. Brittany J., 189 A.D.3d 1738 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).publishedThis Court will accord deference to Family Court's credibility findings, and the determination of whether to hold a party in contempt will generally not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182…
- Matter of Aaron K v. Laurie K., 187 A.D.3d 1423 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).publishedWe will not disturb Family Court's determination on a violation petition absent an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 808 [2020]; Matter of Carl KK. v Michelle JJ. , 175 AD3d at 1628; Matter of Michael…
- Matter of Tamika B. v. Pamela C., 187 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).publishedWe will not disturb Family Court's determination on a violation petition absent an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 808 [2020]; Matter of Carl KK. v Michelle JJ. , 175 AD3d at 1628; Matter of Michael…
At page 807 Guiding visitation decisions by best interests of child3 citing cases
- Matter of Chad KK. v. Jennifer LL., 219 A.D.3d 1581 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).publishedWe defer to Family Court's credibility determinations and factual findings owing to its superior position concerning its ability to evaluate testimony and credibility, and the court's decisions pertaining to custody and visitation will not…
- Matter of Michael P. v. Joyce Q., 191 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021).publishedThus, the court's award of visitation to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Jemar H. v Nevada I. , 182 AD3d 805, 807 [2020]; Matter of Dharamshot v Surita , 150 AD3d 1436, 1437 [2017]).
- Matter of Karen Q. v. Christina R., 184 A.D.3d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).publishedUltimately, "[t]he propriety of visitation is left to the sound discretion of Family Court, guided by the best interests of the child, and its decision will not be disturbed where it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the rec…
v.
Cuppuccino
| People v Cuppuccino |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02296 |
| Decided on April 16, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: April 16, 2020
110336
v
Salvatore Cuppuccino, Appellant.
Calendar Date: March 20, 2020
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Ford Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
[*~805–807]
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered March 9, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
In December 2016, while serving a term of imprisonment, defendant was found to be in possession of a sharpened object. In August 2017, he was charged in an indictment with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The indictment was later amended and, in satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to 1½ to 3 years in prison, to run consecutively to the sentence that he was then serving. Defendant appeals.
[*~805–808]Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, counsel's brief, the People's brief and defendant's pro se supplemental brief, we disagree. Defendant's pro se contentions concerning the denial of his right to a speedy trial and trial counsel's failure to seek dismissal of the indictment on this ground warrant further consideration (see People v Green, 138 AD3d 1312, 1313 [2016]; People v Hernandez, 12 AD3d 723, 723 [2004]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of these issues or any others, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address these issues and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).
[*~806–808]Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.