Beck v. Butler, 87 A.D.3d 1410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Beck v. Butler, 87 A.D.3d 1410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Lockhart v. Monica (nyappdiv, 2026-06-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lockhart v. Monica
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
The AFC met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the grandmother committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree by making multiple calls to the police and contacting child welfare agencies concerning the child for no good reason ( see Matter of Beck v Butler , 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]; see also Matter of Keith M. v Tiffany S.S. , 177 AD3d 508 , 508-509 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Doris M. v Yarenis P. , 161 AD3d 502 , 502-503 [1st Dept 2018]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burley v. Burley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, we reject respondent’s contention that the court abused its discretion in issuing a stay away order of protection (see Matter of Beck v Butler, 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burley v. Burley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, we reject respondent’s contention that the court abused its discretion in issuing a stay away order of protection (see Matter of Beck v Butler, 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petrie v. Petrie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the husband’s contention, however, we conclude that the wife established by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in acts constituting harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree (see Matter of Baginski v Rostkowski, 96 AD3d 1051, 1051-1052 [2012]; see also Matter of Chase-Triou v Triou, 96 AD3d 1699, 1699 [2012]; Matter of Beck v Butler, 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petrie v. Petrie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Contrary to the husband’s contention, however, we conclude that the wife established by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in acts constituting harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree (see Matter of Baginski v Rostkowski, 96 AD3d 1051, 1051-1052 [2012]; see also Matter of Chase-Triou v Triou, 96 AD3d 1699, 1699 [2012]; Matter of Beck v Butler, 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Cousineau v. Ranieri
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to respondent's final contention, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order of protection for a duration of two years ( see §§ 841 [d]; 842; see generally Matter of Beck v Butler , 87 AD3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 801 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Avis M. Beck
v.
Robert Leonard Butler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 30, 2011.
87 A.D.3d 1410
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Memorandum:

In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, respondent contends that Family Court erred in[*1411] determining that he committed a family offense against petitioner. We reject that contention. “The court’s ‘assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the record supports the court’s finding that petitioner was a more credible witness than respondent’ ” (Matter of Threet v Threet, 79 AD3d 1743 [2010]). The record also supports the court’s determination that petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see Matter of Corey v Corey, 40 AD3d 1253, 1254-1255 [2007]; see also Matter of Harrington v Harrington, 63 AD3d 1618, 1619 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]). Respondent verbally abused and threatened petitioner throughout a single day, and respondent left numerous threatening messages on petitioner’s cellular phone that were played for the court (see e.g. Matter of Amber JJ. v Michael KK., 82 AD3d 1558, 1559-1560 [2011]; Matter of Boulerice v Heaney, 45 AD3d 1217, 1218-1219 [2007]). Further, the “prior experience [of petitioner] with [respondent’s] assaultive behavior made the threats credible” (Matter of Cukerstein v Wright, 68 AD3d 1367, 1369 [2009]). Although “obscenities alone may not constitute criminal conduct . . . , we [conclude] that the verbal acts made in the context described by [petitioner] were not constitutionally protected” (Corey, 40 AD3d at 1255; see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 667, 668 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 742 [2004], denied reconsideration 4 NY3d 884 [2005]).

Finally, we reject respondent’s contention that the court abused its discretion in issuing a stay away order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812 [2] [b]; § 842 [a]; see generally Matter of Amy SS. v John SS., 68 AD3d 1262, 1264 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]; Harrington, 63 AD3d at 1619). Present— Fahey, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.