Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., HYDER B.J., Petitioner-Respondent, v. WIDAD Al-S., Respondent-Appellant.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., WIDAD Al-S., Petitioner-Respondent, v. HYDER B.J., Respondent-Appellant.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about April 21, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother an order of protection for one year and determined that respondent father violated a temporary order of protection and committed him to the New York City Department of Corrections for a term of 45 days, and, order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 30, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted petitioner father's application for an order of protection against respondent mother for one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent father may not raise for the first time on appeal his contention that the petitioner failed to establish that he wilfully violated the temporary order of protection on the basis that he had no notice of such order (see, Szigyarto v. Szigyarto, 64 N.Y.2d 275, 486 N.Y.S.2d 164, 475 N.E.2d 777). In any event, we note that at the hearing, rather than asserting that he had no knowledge of the order, respondent father maintained that he did not violate it.
The court's credibility findings, concluding that each party committed the charged offenses, are entitled to deference and are well supported by the hearing records (Muldavin v. Muldavin, 248 A.D.2d 209, 670 N.Y.S.2d 24). Threats to harm and kill each other justified entry of the orders of protection (Id.).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 01, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)