Matter of Susan S. v Jacqueline S.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Susan S. v Jacqueline S. 2013 NY Slip Op 00006 Decided on January 3, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 3, 2013
Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Saxe, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
8926A

[*1]8926-In re Susan S., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Jacqueline S., Respondent-Respondent.



Jacqueline S., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Susan S., Respondent-Appellant.




George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.
Richard L. Herzfeld P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of
counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or about July 14, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing in proceedings brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, granted Jacqueline S.'s petition for a two-year order of protection against Susan S., and dismissed Susan S.'s cross petition for an order of protection against Jacqueline S., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that Susan had committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and attempted assault in the third degree is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act §§ 812 [1]; 832). Susan, however, did not establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that Jacqueline had committed acts warranting an order of protection. The court's credibility determinations are supported by the record, and there is no [*2]basis to disturb them (see Matter of Lisa S. v William V., 95 AD3d 666 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered Susan's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 3, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.