lengthy hearing in New York

1992At the conclusion of the lengthy hearing, County Court found that forensic DNA fingerprint evidence satisfied the standards for admissibility set forth in Frye v United States (supra) and People v Middleton (supra) and granted the prosecution’s motion ( 140 Misc 2d 306 ).

1989Following a lengthy hearing, County Court held that DNA fingerprinting is reliable and accepted within the scientific community ( 140 Misc 2d 306, 332 ).

2016The calendar procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Florexile-Victor v Douglas, 135 AD3d 903, 903 [2016]; Kapnisakis v Woo, 114 AD3d 729 [2014]; Torres v Nu-Way Mach.

2015In Citron v Citron ( 91 Misc 2d 785 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1977]), decided a year before Northrup v Northrup, the trial court found that the legislature’s enactment of section 248 was designed to give judges discre tion to modify maintenance if the former spouse lived with a member of the opposite sex while “she was being accepted by society as another man’s wife.” (Citron v Citron, 91 Misc 2d at 792 .) 5 After the lengthy analysis of the statutory history, the court recognized that reputation — how the couple was perceived by others — was the critical ingredient in applying the “holding out”

2015In Citron v Citron ( 91 Misc 2d 785 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1977]), decided a year before Northrup v Northrup, the trial court found that the legislature’s enactment of section 248 was designed to give judges discre tion to modify maintenance if the former spouse lived with a member of the opposite sex while “she was being accepted by society as another man’s wife.” (Citron v Citron, 91 Misc 2d at 792 .) 5 After the lengthy analysis of the statutory history, the court recognized that reputation — how the couple was perceived by others — was the critical ingredient in applying the “holding out”

2012This past year, Justice Ellen Gesmer held in ES. v R.O. ( 31 Misc 3d 373 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]), that the promulgation of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (2) (b) as a court rule in 22 NYCRR 202.16-a constitutes a “lawful mandate [ ] of the court” and that the legislative history of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (2) (b) clarifies “that the Legislature intended that a violation of the automatic orders would be redressed by the same remedies available for violations of any order signed by a judge.” (Id. at 376.) This court agrees fully with Justice Gesmer’s sound reasoning and it concludes

2012In our view, according due deference to Family Court’s ability to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility (see Matter of Kimberly CC. v Gerry CC., 86 AD3d 728, 730-731 [2011]), the record amply supports Family Court’s determination that joint custody would be inappropriate (see Matter of Melissa WW. v Conley XX., 88 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 803 [2012]), and that the best interests of the children would not be served by awarding sole custody to the father (see Matter of Shearer v Spisak, 90 AD3d 1346, 1347 [2011]).

2009However, the record demonstrates that the parents were antagonistic, embattled, and unable to set aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and cooperate on matters in the best interests of their children (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d at 998; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of Garcia, 44 AD3d at 661 ; Matter of McCoy, 43 AD3d at 469 ; Matter of Fishburne, 34 AD3d at 805 ; Matter of Tavarez, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt, 201 AD2d at 560 ; Matter of George W.S., 187 AD2d at 658 ).

2009However, the record demonstrates that the parents were antagonistic, embattled, and unable to set aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and cooperate on matters in the best interests of their children (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d at 998; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of Garcia, 44 AD3d at 661 ; Matter of McCoy, 43 AD3d at 469 ; Matter of Fishburne, 34 AD3d at 805 ; Matter of Tavarez, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt, 201 AD2d at 560 ; Matter of George W.S., 187 AD2d at 658 ).

2009However, the record demonstrates that the parents were antagonistic, embattled, and unable to set aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and cooperate on matters in the best interests of their children (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d at 998; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of Garcia, 44 AD3d at 661 ; Matter of McCoy, 43 AD3d at 469 ; Matter of Fishburne, 34 AD3d at 805 ; Matter of Tavarez, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt, 201 AD2d at 560 ; Matter of George W.S., 187 AD2d at 658 ).

2009While much of this evidence has been the subject of intense dispute during this lengthy hearing, it is for Family Court, in the first instance, to determine the credibility of such evidence and its conclusions will not be disturbed unless they clearly constitute an abuse of the court’s discretion and are without any support in the record (see Matter of Smith v Smith, 61 AD3d 1275, 1277 [2009]; Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 991 ; Matter of Musgrove v Bloom, 19 AD3d 819, 820 [2005]).

2009However, the record demonstrates that the parents were antagonistic, embattled, and unable to set aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and cooperate on matters in the best interests of their children (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d at 998; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of Garcia, 44 AD3d at 661 ; Matter of McCoy, 43 AD3d at 469 ; Matter of Fishburne, 34 AD3d at 805 ; Matter of Tavarez, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt, 201 AD2d at 560 ; Matter of George W.S., 187 AD2d at 658 ).

2009However, the record demonstrates that the parents were antagonistic, embattled, and unable to set aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and cooperate on matters in the best interests of their children (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d at 998; Braiman, 44 NY2d at 589-590; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 500 [2008]; Matter of Garcia, 44 AD3d at 661 ; Matter of McCoy, 43 AD3d at 469 ; Matter of Fishburne, 34 AD3d at 805 ; Matter of Tavarez, 31 AD3d at 458; Matter of Bornholdt, 201 AD2d at 560 ; Matter of George W.S., 187 AD2d at 658 ).

2009That determination, based in large part upon the court’s firsthand assessment of the character and credibility of the parties, is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]).

2004Although the parties’ initial voluntary agreement is one factor to be considered in determining custody, the standard to be applied is the best interests of the children based on the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]).

2004Although the parties’ initial voluntary agreement is one factor to be considered in determining custody, the standard to be applied is the best interests of the children based on the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]).

2000Under the circumstances existing at this point, and contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, our decision of four years ago, Matter of Aran v Mejias ( 230 AD2d 675 ), involving the same candidate, is not controlling.

1997The court properly denied defendant’s request for dismissal or other sanctions requested by defendant for the failure of the police to preserve the Vitullo kits, containing physical evidence taken from his victims. "[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process.” (Arizona v Youngblood, 488 US 51, 58 ; see also, People v Allgood, 70 NY2d 812 .) The court’s finding, after a lengthy hearing, that there was no showing of bad faith is amply supported by the record, which establi

1997The appropriate sanction for the destruction of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court (People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516, 521 ).

1995These appeals by respondents followed. 2 It is well settled that "[t]he threshold inquiry in any permanent neglect proceeding is whether the petitioning agency has discharged its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” (Matter of Shannon U., 210 AD2d 752, 753 , lv denied 85 NY2d 807 ; see, Matter of Elizabeth Q., 216 AD2d 628 , lv denied 86 NY2d 706 ).