Wilkins v. Wilkins, 47 A.D.3d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilkins v. Wilkins, 47 A.D.3d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gavin v. Worner (nyappdiv, 2013-12-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gavin v. Worner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gavin v. Worner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Matter of Barrett v Pickett, 5 AD3d 591 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Opray v. Fitzharris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Likewise, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination that the wife failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the husband committed a family offense on April 3, 2010 (see Matter of Luke v Luke, 72 AD3d 689 [2010]; Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755, 756 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842, 842-843 [2007]; Family Ct Act § 832).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richardson v. Richardson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The Family Court’s determination that the appellant failed to establish that a family offense was committed against her was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755, 756 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842, 843 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karagiannis v. Karagiannis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
On appeal, credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Piernick v Nazinitsky, 48 AD3d 690 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Matter of Barrett v Pickett,, 5 AD3d 591, 592 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Luke v. Luke
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Holder v Francis, 67 AD3d 679 [2009]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Fernandez v Pacheco, 59 AD3d 542, 543 [2009]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909 [2008]; Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755 [2008]; Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" Hijri v. Fargaly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
“Where the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its factual determinations are afforded great weight on appeal” (Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40 AD3d 770, 770 [2007]; see Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins, 47 AD3d 823 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Anita Wilkins
v.
Rohan Wilkins
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 22, 2008.
47 A.D.3d 823
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, which was transferred to the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Supreme Court (see 22 NYCRR 141.4), the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Morgenstern, J.), dated January 31, 2007, as, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that he violated an order of protection of the same court dated February 22, 2005, and directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the wife for a period of five years.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[*824] Where issues of credibility are presented, the factual determinations of a hearing court are afforded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if warranted by the record (see Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40 AD3d 770 [2007]; McKiernan v McKiernan, 274 AD2d 560 [2000]; see generally Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the husband violated an order of protection by going to the home of a mutual acquaintance of the parties, and looking for the wife while armed with an unsheathed machete only two days after being denied visitation with the parties’ son (cf. Matter of Sarmuksnis v Priest, 21 AD3d 381 [2005]; Matter of Louvaris v Louvaris, 209 AD2d 524 [1994]; Matter of Lentino v Lentino, 185 AD2d 849 [1992]).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.