You are here: / / Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance
,

Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance

The Second Department determined the family offense of attempted assault in the second degree had not been “established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” in Family Court:

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 832;…). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal” … .Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence did not support the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed the family offense of attempted assault in the second degree (see Family Court Act §§ 812[1], 832; Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05[1]… .  Matter of Hubbard v Ponce DeLeon, 2013 NY slip Op 05211, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Cause of Her Fall Without Resorting to Speculation
EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE.
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION BROUGHT BY INJURED STUDENT.
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Constructive Emancipation or Abandonment Criteria for Causes of Action Discussed in Extensive Modification of Supreme...