In re Shelby, 55 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Shelby, 55 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Columbia County Department of Social Services v. Kristin M. (nyappdiv, 2012-02-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Columbia County Department of Social Services v. Kristin M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
While respondent' denied that Sean N. was in the home on September 21, 2010 and some of Aiden’s statements to Family Court were contradictory to statements he previously made to San Materio, viewing the record as a whole and giving appropriate deference to Family Court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 988 [2008]; see also Matter of Kimberly Z. [Jason Z.], 88 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2011]), we find that petitioner satisfied its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent willfully violated the order of protection (see Matter of Blaize F.,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jatie P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Turning to the merits, petitioner was required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2008]; Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia, 56 AD3d 963 , 964 [2008]), that respondent willfully violated the terms of the order of protection by allowing unsupervised contact between the child and the mother (see Matter of Seacord v Seacord, 81 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2011]; Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Katie II.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Finally, the wife testified that respondent had threatened to hurt the children and also called them derogatory names, such as “whore, slut [and] bitch.” While respondent denied having threatened the children, he did admit that he called one of the children a “bitch.” Giving deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments (see Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.], 75 AD3d 776, 778 [2010]), we conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing ev idence that respondent willfully violated the court’s order of protection (see Matter of Duane H. v Tina J., 66 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Given the court’s opportunity to observe the mother’s testimony, we defer to its assessment of her credibility (see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 988 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d 1007 , 1009 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Caitlyn U.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Since cooperation with and successful completion of the treatment program, rather than mere attendance, were required, the record contains clear and convincing evidence that respondent willfully violated the order (see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 988 [2008]; Matter of Kristi AA., 295 AD2d 651, 651 [2002]; Matter of Ashley M., 256 AD2d 825, 826 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ashley E.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
As for the merits of respondent’s appeal, we find that petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evi dence that respondent willfully violated any provision of Family Court’s orders (see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d 1007 , 1008 [2008]; Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duane H. v. Tina J. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
According deference to that credibility determination, as we must, we conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother willfully violated the relevant order of protection (see Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d at 1009 ; see also Matter of Nicolette I., 56 AD3d 1080 , 1081 [2008]; Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d at 988).
discussed Cited "see" In re Andrew L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Such a finding, which permits a sanction of up to six months in jail, “requires that competent evidence be presented that establishes the willfulness of the violation by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Brittany T, 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Shelby B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent Tina D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 16, 2008.
55 A.D.3d 986
Kavanagh.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Kavanagh, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered October 24, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, finding respondent in willful violation of prior orders of the court.

In July 2007, petitioner filed a Family Ct Act article 10 neglect petition alleging that respondent had neglected her two children (born in 1994 and 1997). Family Court, in response to the allegations contained in the petition, issued a temporary order of protection on behalf of the two children, and orders that directed respondent to cooperate with petitioner in the performance of substance abuse assessments and participate in evalu[*987] ations to determine the status of her mental health. These orders specifically required respondent to keep petitioner advised of any change in her address, phone number or household composition, and directed her to fully and completely cooperate with petitioner’s caseworkers in their ongoing efforts to provide assistance to her and her two children. Two months after these orders were issued, petitioner filed this petition which alleged, among other things, that respondent, without notice, had moved from her residence and, for almost two months, failed to keep petitioner informed of her whereabouts. It also alleged that respondent had not fully or faithfully cooperated with petitioner’s caseworkers pursuant to the terms set forth in the orders.*

After a hearing, Family Court found that respondent had willfully violated the terms of the order of protection and orders for services and imposed a sanction of 90 days of incarceration, with leave for respondent to apply for a suspension of the balance of the sentence if she was accepted into a program monitored and administered by a drug court. Respondent now appeals.

We affirm. Petitioner was required to present competent proof to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent willfully violated an order of Family Court (see Family Ct Act § 1072; Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Blaize E, 48 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2008]; see also Matter of Elliot v Marble, 49 AD3d 923, 924 [2008]). In this regard, petitioner offered the testimony of one of its caseworkers, Sarah Lawrence, to the effect that at the time these orders were issued, respondent lived at the Evergreen Townhouses in Clinton County. According to the director of Evergreen, however, respondent had not resided there since July 2, 2007 and that on July 16, 2007, he had ordered that the locks to her apartment be changed. Lawrence also testified that respondent had not informed petitioner of any change in her address during this period and petitioner’s employees did not know of her whereabouts until August 27, 2007, when its caseworkers learned of her new address.

In response, respondent claimed at the hearing that she did not move from the Evergreen Townhouses until early August 2007, and that on numerous occasions, both in person and by telephone, she informed various employees of petitioner that she was moving from the Evergreen Townhouses and provided[*988] them with her new address. In response to this claim, one of the employees with whom respondent claimed to have had contact testified that at no time during this period did respondent ever advise her that she had moved or disclose her new address. In addition, respondent, during the period when she claimed to have resided at the Evergreen Townhouses, acknowledged that the locks to her apartment had been changed, and on two sepa- - rate occasions in July 2007, she had to obtain the assistance of maintenance personnel to gain admission to her apartment.

Family Court’s finding that respondent had, in fact, willfully violated its orders was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing and, as such, is entitled to due deference (see Matter of Blaize F., 48 AD3d at 1009). The testimony established that only days after these orders had been issued, respondent moved to a new address without notifying petitioner and did so at a time when she acknowledged that she was fully and completely aware of her obligations under Family Court’s orders. As such, petitioner has met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that respondent willfully violated provisions of orders as issued by Family Court.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

The petition also alleged that respondent failed to keep appointments at a mental health clinic for the court-ordered evaluation and failed to cooperate with the court-ordered drug evaluation. Before the hearing commenced, petitioner withdrew these allegations.