Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 59 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 59 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 622 Determining commission of family offenses and reversing protective orders9 citing casesinter alia, pounding his fist on a table in order to emphasize a point made during an animated discussion, constituted disorderly conduct (see Family Ct Act §…opening of page *622 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 6 listed here
  • Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    However, there was insufficient evidence that the appellant committed the family offense of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20; Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337 [2013]; Matter of Aruti v Aruti, 88 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Hasbr…
  • Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    However, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant committed the family offense of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20; Matter of Aruti v Aruti, 88 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d…
  • Testa v. Strickland, 99 A.D.3d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    The petitioner did not establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant’s acts of sending several text messages to the parties’ eldest son in May 2011 constituted aggravated harassment in the second degree (see Family C…
  • Mamantov v. Mamantov, 86 A.D.3d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    However, accepting the evidence as true and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference (see Matter of Prezioso v Prezioso, 79 AD3d at 1043 ; Matter of Ramroop v Ramsagar, 74 AD3d at 1209 ), the wife failed to demonstrate, prima f…
  • Tauriello v. Thompson, 84 A.D.3d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Consequently, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed (see Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621, 622 [2009]).
  • Charles E. v. Frank E., 72 A.D.3d 1439 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).published
    Respondent’s letter requesting that petitioner provide a schedule for removal of his property was civil, with no indication that it was intended to harass, annoy or alarm anyone, and it served a legitimate purpose of allowing respondent to…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Mary M. Hasbrouck
v.
Paul R. Hasbrouck
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 17, 2009.
Published opinion
59 A.D.3d 621
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Paul R. Hasbrouck appeals from (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated March 13, 2008, directing him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner’s home, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated May 13, 2008, which, after a hearing, upon a finding that he had committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and disorderly conduct, granted the petition and continued the term of a temporary order of protection dated December 17, 2007, until March 13, 2010.

Ordered that the order of protection and the order of disposition are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

In a family offense proceeding, the allegations asserted in a petition seeking the issuance of an order of protection must be supported by “a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Patton v Torres, 38 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812 [2002]; Matter of Hogan v Hogan, 271 AD2d 533 [2000]).

The petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant’s acts on December 7, 2007, of,[*622] inter alia, pounding his fist on a table in order to emphasize a point made during an animated discussion, constituted disorderly conduct (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.20; Matter of Bartley v Bartley, 48 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2008]; cf. Matter of Larson v Gilliam, 49 AD3d 650 [2008]).

The petitioner also failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had formed the requisite intent “to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm” the petitioner when he made a telephone call to her on December 16, 2007, seeking to go to her home to retrieve certain personal items previously left there (Penal Law § 240.30 [1] [a]). Thus, the evidence proffered at the hearing failed to establish that the appellant committed the family offense of aggravated harassment (see Penal Law § 240.30 [1] [a]; Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 32 AD3d 521 [2006]; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861 [2003]).

Since the record does not support the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed family offenses warranting the issuance of the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; §§ 832, 841; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d 496 [2004]; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860 [2003]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390 [2002]; Matter of Anonymous v Anonymous, 23 AD3d 461 [2005]), the order of protection and the order of disposition must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.