green
Positive treatment
Issue: evidence adduced hearingNY ↗
Issue: advantage of seeing hearingNY ↗
12.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Pierre v. Dal
The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed acts against the father which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against the mother (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; see also Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza, 107 AD3d 793, 794 [2013]; Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Niyazova v. Shimunov
Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a *1123 fair preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed acts against the petitioner which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Kiani v. Kiani
The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that Kiani committed acts which constituted the family offenses of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), *1038 disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [1]; see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d at 1033 ), and menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15; see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010]), warranting the issuance of an order of p…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shields v. Brown
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence elicited at the fact-finding hearing supports the hearing court’s determination that Gary Brown committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]; Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez, 96 AD3d 838, 838 [2012]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011] ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shields v. Brown
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence elicited at the fact-finding hearing supports the hearing court’s determination that Gary Brown committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]; Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez, 96 AD3d 838, 838 [2012]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011] ; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hubbard v. DeLeon
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal” (Matter of Marte v Biondo, 104 AD3d at 947 ; see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hubbard v. DeLeon
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal” (Matter of Marte v Biondo, 104 AD3d at 947 ; see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanco v. Blanco
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]), “and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal” (Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez, 96 AD3d 838, 838 [2012]; see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d at 1033 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanco v. Blanco
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]), “and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal” (Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez, 96 AD3d 838, 838 [2012]; see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d at 1033 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amy R. v. Mitchell R.
“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 Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amy R. v. Mitchell R.
“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 Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Mia Smith
v.
Franck Amedee
v.
Franck Amedee
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 19, 2012.
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]), “and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal” (Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez, 96 AD3d 838, 838 [2012]; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at 1178; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court’s determination that he committed acts which constituted the family offenses of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711 [2010]), reckless endangerment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.20; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Knibbs v Zeman, 86 AD3d 568 [2011]), and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at 1178), warranting the issuance of an order of protection.
The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.