Panico v. Panico, 100 A.D.3d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Panico v. Panico, 100 A.D.3d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Fuel v. Chaca (nyappdiv, 2017-05-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Fuel v. Chaca
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports a finding that the appellant committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and menacing in the third degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]; 120.15, 240.26 [1]; see Matter of Maiorino v Maiorino, 107 AD3d 717 [2013]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Akter v Patwary, 80 AD3d 759 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe-Crenshaw
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, while the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed acts which constituted the family offenses of harassment in the first and second degrees (see Penal Law §§ 240.25, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Savas v Bruen, 139 AD3d 737, 738 [2016]; Matter of Kiani v Kiani, 134 AD3d 1036, 1037-1038 [2015]; Matter of Konstatine v Konstatine, 107 AD3d 994, 994-995 [2013]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]), the evidence failed to establish that the mother committed acts which constituted the family offense of criminal mi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Masciello v. Masciello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Remittal is nevertheless unnecessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Son v Ramos, 117 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Abatantuno v. Abatantuno
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, remittal to the Family Court is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d at 1026 ; Matter of Son v Ramos, 117 AD3d 745 [2014]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Son v. Ramos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Remittal is nevertheless unnecessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Son v. Ramos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Remittal is nevertheless unnecessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maiorino v. Maiorino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports a finding that the appellant committed two family offenses of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067 [2012]), as well as the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909, 910 [2008]), and menacing in the third degree (see Penal Law § 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maiorino v. Maiorino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports a finding that the appellant committed two family offenses of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067 [2012]), as well as the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]; Matter of Panico v Panico, 100 AD3d 907, 908 [2012]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909, 910 [2008]), and menacing in the third degree (see Penal Law § 1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Cindy Panico
v.
Cory Panico, (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Albert Panico v. Cory Panico, (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 21, 2012.
100 A.D.3d 907
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

In two related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Cory Pánico appeals from (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogaez, J.),[*908] dated August 26, 2011, entered in proceeding No. 1, which, upon a finding that he had committed the family offenses of harassment in the first degree and assault in the third degree against Cindy Pánico, made after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Cindy Pánico until and including July 28, 2013, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, also dated August 26, 2011, entered in proceeding No. 2, which, upon a finding that he had committed the family offense of attempted assault in the third degree against Albert Pánico, made after the same hearing, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Albert Pánico until and including July 28, 2013.

Ordered that the orders of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court” (Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773, 773 [2009]; see Matter of Asgedom v Asgedom, 51 AD3d 787, 787-788 [2008]; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]). Here, the Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determinations to grant the petitions for orders of protection (see CPLR 4213 [b]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025-1026 [1979]; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d 1067 [2012]; Matter of Drury v Drury, 90 AD3d 754, 755 [2011]). However, remittal to the Family Court is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d at 1026; Matter of Sperling v Sperling, 96 AD3d at 1067; Matter of Destiny H. [Valerie B.], 83 AD3d 939 [2011]). Upon such review, we conclude that the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed the family offenses of harassment in the first degree and assault in the third degree against Cindy Pánico, and the family offense of attempted assault in the third degree against Albert Pánico, warranting the issuance of orders of protection {see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Penal Law §§ 240.25, 110.00, 120.00). Balkin, J.P, Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.