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: Cheryl DosReis, appellant, v Lawrence Rousseau, respondent.
Submitted—May 13, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the maternal grandmother, Cheryl DosReis appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Kennedy, J.), dated August 24, 2010, as, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.
ORDERED that the order is 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, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record” (Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43–44; see Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 AD3d 689). Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the father menaced and recklessly endangered Cheryl DosReis (hereinafter the grandmother). The Family Court's determination that the grandmother failed to establish that a family offense was committed was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties and of several eyewitnesses, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 AD3d at 44; Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 AD3d at 689; Matter of Campbell v. Desir, 251 A.D.2d 402, 403). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination.
COVELLO, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2010–09538 (Docket No. O–26589–09)
Decided: June 21, 2011
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)