Aruti v. Aruti
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*701A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621 [2009]). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Fleming v Fleming, 52 AD3d 600 [2008]; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613 [2000]).
Here, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pearlman v. PearlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Hasbrouck v. HasbrouckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- King v. FlowersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- London v. BlazerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Topper v. TopperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Testa v. StricklandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Maiorino v. MaiorinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Hodiantov v. AronovAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Daoud v. DaoudAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Lannaman v. MinusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.