nonjury trial hearing in New York

2021"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of State of New York v Raul L. , 86 AD3d 607, 609 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of State of New York v Richard J. , 186 AD3d 491 ).

2020In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of State of New York v Abdul A. , 123 AD3d [*3]1047, 1048).

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2022"The Family Court's determination as to the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and, if supported by the record, will not be disturbed on appeal" ( Matter of Mansour v Mahgoub , 202 AD3d 961, 962 ; see Matter of Royal v Royal , 187 AD3d 1195, 1196 ). "'In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearin

2019"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close [*2]case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of State of New York v Raul L. , 120 AD3d 52, 59 ).

2025"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of State of New York v Abdul A. , 123 AD3d 1047, 1048 ; see Matter of State of New York v Richard J. , 186 AD3d 491 ).

2021"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of State of New York v Raul L. , 86 AD3d 607, 609 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Matter of State of New York v Richard J. , 186 AD3d 491 ).

2025"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of Cook v Berehowsky , 211 AD3d at 728 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2024Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Family Court's determination that Jimenez committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 240.26[3]) and disorderly conduct ( see id. § 240.20; Matter of Cook v Berehowsky , 211 AD3d at 728 ; see generally Matter of Cassie v Cassie , 109 AD3d 337, 342-344 ).

2025A person commits harassment in the second degree when with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another, he or she "engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose" (Penal Law § 240.26[3]; see Matter of Aronov v Matvienko , _____ AD3d at _____, 2025 NY Slip Op 01599,*1-2 ). [*2]"While there is no question that an isolated incident cannot support a finding of harassment, a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose can su

2025A person commits harassment in the second degree when with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another, he or she "engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose" (Penal Law § 240.26[3]; see Matter of Aronov v Matvienko , _____ AD3d at _____, 2025 NY Slip Op 01599,*1-2 ). [*2]"While there is no question that an isolated incident cannot support a finding of harassment, a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose can su

2024A person commits harassment in the second degree when that person, "with intent [*2]to harass, annoy or alarm another person[,] . . . strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or . . . engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose" (Penal Law § 240.26[1], [3]; see Matter of Townes v Diggs , 216 AD3d at 1105 ).

2024Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Family Court's determination that Jimenez committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 240.26[3]) and disorderly conduct ( see id. § 240.20; Matter of Cook v Berehowsky , 211 AD3d at 728 ; see generally Matter of Cassie v Cassie , 109 AD3d 337, 342-344 ).

2022"The Family Court's determination as to the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and, if supported by the record, will not be disturbed on appeal" ( Matter of Mansour v Mahgoub , 202 AD3d 961, 962 ; see Matter of Royal v Royal , 187 AD3d 1195, 1196 ). "'In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearin

1997Contrary to defendant’s contention, in reviewing a decision following a nonjury trial our inquiry is not limited to determining whether the court’s findings are supported by credible evidence; “rather, if it appears that a finding different from that of Supreme Court is not unreasonable, we must weigh the probative force of the conflicting evidence and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn, and grant judgment as warranted * * * However, deference must be given to the findings of the trial court which was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesse

1997Contrary to defendant’s contention, in reviewing a decision following a nonjury trial our inquiry is not limited to determining whether the court’s findings are supported by credible evidence; “rather, if it appears that a finding different from that of Supreme Court is not unreasonable, we must weigh the probative force of the conflicting evidence and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn, and grant judgment as warranted * * * However, deference must be given to the findings of the trial court which was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesse