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: Tyrie Penn, respondent, v Jeffrey Calvin Johnson, appellant.
Submitted-April 9, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jeffrey Calvin Johnson appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated April 30, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that he committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, and directed him to observe the conditions set forth in an order of protection of the same court also dated April 30, 2009, up to and including April 29, 2010, and (2) the order of protection dated April 30, 2009.
ORDERED that the appeals from the order of protection and so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as directed the appellant to observe the conditions set forth in the order of protection up to and including April 29, 2010, are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order of protection and the dispositional portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition have been rendered academic by the expiration of the time limits contained therein (see Matter of Hunt v. Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925; Matter of Mazzola v. Mazzola, 280 A.D.2d 674).
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court” (Matter of Lallmohamed v. Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562, 562), and its credibility determinations are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Halper v. Halper, 61 AD3d 686, 687; Matter of Ford v. Pitts, 30 AD3d 419, 420). Contrary to the appellant's contention, there was legally sufficient evidence that he committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, and those offenses were also proved by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 59 AD3d 725; People v. Kearns, 56 AD3d 1047; People v. Collins, 178 A.D.2d 789).
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-04996 2009-04997 (Docket No. O-37405-08)
Decided: May 04, 2010
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)