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: BRIDGETTE B. E., Petitioner-Appellant, v. LISANDRO R. C., Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about November 1, 2021, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the family offense petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The evidence proffered at the hearing failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of disorderly conduct when he came to petitioner's apartment with his adult daughter, who allegedly threatened petitioner with a box cutter. Petitioner's testimony, which focused on the allegedly threatening conduct by respondent's daughter, was insufficient to establish that respondent acted with intent to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, as required to support a finding of disorderly conduct (see Matter of Linda H. v Ahmed S., 188 A.D.3d 597, 599, 136 N.Y.S.3d 263 [1st Dept. 2020]). Family Court's determination that petitioner's testimony was not credible is entitled to deference, regardless of respondent's decision not to testify (see Matter of Peter G. v. Karleen K., 51 A.D.3d 541, 541, 856 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept. 2008]). The court also had before it the conflicting testimony by respondent's daughter concerning the incident and a video that she took of the incident. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the video into evidence, because it was properly authenticated by respondent's daughter, who testified that she recorded it on her phone and that it accurately represented the events depicted (see People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665 [1999]).
Family Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a continuance, which was made after the parties’ summations (see Matter of Sakow, 21 A.D.3d 849, 849, 802 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 706, 837 N.Y.S.2d 1, 868 N.E.2d 662 [2006]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved or unavailing.
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.
Docket No: 16250
Decided: September 27, 2022
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)