green
Positive treatment
23.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Doris M. v. Yarenis P.
The Referee erred in determining that respondent's actions of leaving water to boil over on the stove, burning the pots, allowing the bathtub to overflow on several occasions and screaming in the middle of the night while playing her music in a loud manner, constituted the family offense of harassment in the first degree, because there were no facts alleged in the family offense petition supporting such a finding ( see Matter of Sasha R. v Alberto A. , 127 AD3d 567, 567 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez , 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Smith v. Ludewig
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Saldivar v Cabrera, 109 AD3d 831, 831 [2013]; Matter of Bazante v Bazante, 107 AD3d 707, 707 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Kim Yvette W. v. Leola Patricia W.
Respondent’s actions in the summer of 2013 could not support a finding that she had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, because the family offense petition contained no facts regarding those incidents (see Matter of Sasha R. v Alberto A., 127 AD3d 567, 567 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Little v. Renz
The Family Court did not err by refusing to consider evidence concerning incidents between the parties which were not alleged in the father’s petition (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Vanita UU. v. Mahender VV.
Here, the mother testified that, in January 2011, the father telephoned her and, during the course of the ensuing conversation, stated, “I will hunt you down and take care of you, you bitch, you’ll be sorry.” Contrary to the father’s assertion, physical proximity to the victim is not an element of the underlying offense, and this single incident is sufficient to support Family Court’s finding that the father committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Messana v. Messana
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Saldivar v Cabrera, 109 AD3d 831 [2013]; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]; Matter of Bazante v Bazante, 107 AD3d 707 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Messana v. Messana
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Saldivar v Cabrera, 109 AD3d 831 [2013]; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]; Matter of Bazante v Bazante, 107 AD3d 707 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bessent v. Bessent
However, the Supreme Court improperly found that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree relating to an incident that occurred in November 2011, since that incident was not charged in the amended petition (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Czop v Czop, 21 AD3d 958, 959 [2005]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390, 392 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bessent v. Bessent
However, the Supreme Court improperly found that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree relating to an incident that occurred in November 2011, since that incident was not charged in the amended petition (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Czop v Czop, 21 AD3d 958, 959 [2005]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390, 392 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saldivar v. Cabrera
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Bazante v Bazante, 107 AD3d 707 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Saldivar v. Cabrera
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Bazante v Bazante, 107 AD3d 707 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parameswar v. Parameswar
The Family 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 Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 AD3d 784, 785 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parameswar v. Parameswar
The Family 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 Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 AD3d 784, 785 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alam v. Alam
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 unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 AD3d at 785 ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 101 AD3d at 878 ; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alam v. Alam
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 unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 AD3d at 785 ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 101 AD3d at 878 ; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bazante v. Bazante
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bazante v. Bazante
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John O. v. Michele O.
Her testimony was found credible by Family Court and was suf ficient to establish the family offense of harassment in the second degree by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John O. v. Michele O.
Her testimony was found credible by Family Court and was suf ficient to establish the family offense of harassment in the second degree by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Khan v. Khan
“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 unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Alam v Alam, 108 AD3d 665, 666 [2013]; see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Khan v. Khan
“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 unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Alam v Alam, 108 AD3d 665, 666 [2013]; see Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murray-Caines v. Caines
The Family Court properly granted defendant’s prehearing application to limit plaintiff’s proof to the allegations in the petition (see Matter of Czop v Czop, 21 AD3d 958, 959 [2d Dept 2005]; see also Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Pilar Salazar
v.
Candido Melendez
v.
Candido Melendez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 18, 2012.
Cited by 34 opinions | Published
[*755] A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]). “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” (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]; see Matter of King v Edwards, 92 AD3d 783 [2012]).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court’s determination that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree when, on March 7, 2011, he made a telephone call to the wife and threatened to kill her and send her in a box or coffin to her parents (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812; Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933 [2011]; Matter of Marsha C. v Latoya D., 224 AD2d 522 [1996]).
However, the Family Court improperly found that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree with respect to an incident that occurred in February 2011, since that incident was not charged in the petition (see Matter of Czop v Czop, 21 AD3d 958, 959 [2005]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390, 392 [2002]; Matter of Whittemore v Lloyd, 266 AD2d 305 [1999]).
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.