For instance, the court received in evidence, Ex. Next, with respect the second incident, respondent's counsel introduced additional correspondence between petitioner and respondent that defied petitioner's assertions that she was fearful of respondent. Moreover, despite petitioner's testimony that she lived in fear of respondent, respondent's counsel was able to place into evidence numerous exchanges between petitioner and respondent following the incident that revealed a cordial and convivial relationship. To be sure, respondent's counsel adeptly challenged respondent's recollection of the incident, and highlighted that petitioner's testimony was not substantiated by any photographs of the purportedly cracked door. On cross-examination, respondent's counsel credibly called into question petitioner's statements regarding the first incident. Petitioner further testified that she reported this incident to the police. Thereafter, petitioner testified that she suffered bruising on her shoulder and hip and marks atop her hands. With respect to the third and final incident, petitioner testified that on or about May 31, 2021, petitioner was in front of her apartment building with her daughters at approximately 1:00 AM when respondent pushed himself into petitioner with such force that petitioner stumbled into one of petitioner and respondent's daughters. Following this exchange, petitioner stated that she felt acute fear for her safety and well-being. Petitioner states that respondent grabbed her arm with such force that petitioner had deep lacerations on her arm. Petitioner then testified that during their conversation, respondent got upset and tried force petitioner to exit the building with respondent. Petitioner further testified that at some point petitioner and respondent had a discussion in the lobby of the building. With respect to the second incident, petitioner testified that in or about February 2020, respondent unexpectedly showed up at petitioner's current residence at 15 West 72nd Street in New York City and represented that he was a resident within the building. Petitioner testified that she was fearful of respondent following this purported incident. Petitioner also testified that respondent shouted obscenities at petitioner during the exchange. Petitioner further testified that thereafter, respondent went into a room, and slammed the door with such force that there was a notable crack in the door. Petitioner testified that in or about July 2019, petitioner and respondent were discussing their family when respondent grabbed petitioner by the neck, pushed petitioner into a wall, and then attempted to punch petitioner in the face. Petitioner testified that the first incident between her and respondent occurred at their marital residence in California in July 2019. To be sure, petitioner testified to discrete interactions with respondent in July 2019, February 2020, and May 2021 that embody the gravamen of her petition. Petitioner's most prominent allegations within her petition, as testified to throughout the course of the fact-finding, relate to respondent purportedly trespassing on petitioner's property, stalking petitioner, and subjecting petitioner to physical attacks. After issue was joined and following several court conferences at which resolution could not be achieved, a fact-finding hearing was held on March 31, 2022, May 31, 2022, June 17, 2022, September 9, 2022, and October 20, 2022. On June 25, 2021, petitioner filed a family offense petition in the Family Court in New York County. Petitioner is the spouse of respondent and has children in common with respondent. After considering the parties arguments on the record, and after a thorough review of the evidence at the fact-finding, including recordings of the proceedings and documents received in evidence that are incorporated by reference, respondent's motion is granted. Petitioner, through her counsel, opposes the motion by arguing that her petition must be viewed in a light most favorable. Respondent argues that petitioner has failed to show, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that respondent committed any qualifying family offenses. ("respondent"), through counsel, moves to dismiss petitioner A.C.'s ("petitioner") petition following the close of petitioner's case-in-chief at fact-finding. In this proceeding brought under Article 8 of the Family Court Act, respondent G.P. In the Matter of a Family Offense Proceeding This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |