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: Sharon HENDRICK, respondent-appellant, v. Nicholas DiRUSSO, appellant-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)
IN RE: Nicholas DiRusso, appellant-respondent, v. Sharon Hendrick, respondent-appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
In two family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Nicholas DiRusso appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), dated March 31, 1998, in Proceeding No. 1, which, after a hearing, ordered that he refrain from harassing Sharon Hendrick, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated March 31, 1998, in Proceeding No. 2, which, after a hearing, ordered that Sharon Hendrick refrain from menacing him, and Sharon Hendrick cross-appeals from both orders.
ORDERED that the cross appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order in Proceeding No. 1 is modified by deleting therefrom the word “harassment” and substituting therefor the word “menacing”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order in Proceeding No. 2 is modified by deleting therefrom the word “menacing” and substituting therefor the word “harassment”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the instant orders of protection have expired, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not academic (see, Matter of Combs v. Solomon, 261 A.D.2d 473, 690 N.Y.S.2d 103; Matter of Tibichrani v. Debs, 230 A.D.2d 746, 646 N.Y.S.2d 360).
However, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination in Proceeding No. 1 that Nicholas DiRusso harassed his wife, Sharon Hendrick. The Family Court properly conformed the petition to the proof (see, CPLR 3025 [c] ). As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of Tibichrani v. Debs, supra). Its determination is not against the weight of the credible evidence.
Nevertheless, the record is clear that the Family Court transposed the offenses in the orders of protection, which we have modified accordingly.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 30, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)