ANGELA MURRAYCAINES, plf-ap, v. WILLIAM L. CAINES, def-res

4198-4199. ANGELA MURRAYCAINES, plf-ap, v. WILLIAM L. CAINES, def-res — Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., New York (Craig E. Bolton of counsel), for ap — Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2016, which, after a hearing, among other things, dismissed plaintiff wife's petition seeking an order of protection; and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 26, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's CPLR 4404(b) motion to set aside the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4198-4199. ANGELA MURRAYCAINES, plf-ap, v. WILLIAM L. CAINES, def-res — Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., New York (Craig E. Bolton of counsel), for ap — Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2016, which, after a hearing, among other things, dismissed plaintiff wife’s petition seeking an order of protection; and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 26, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(b) motion to set aside the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that the allegations in the petition are not supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §832; Matter of Everett C. v. Oneida P., 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). The court stated that it had reached its determination following completion of the hearing and upon consideration of both parties’ testimony (cf. Matter of Janice M. v. Terrance J., 96 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2012] [consideration of the petitioner's credibility was improper on a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to prove a prima facie case]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination that plaintiff’s testimony was not credible (see Matter of Everett C., 61 AD3d 489), particularly given the evidence of plaintiff’s motive to have defendant barred from the marital residence.

ANGELA MURRAYCAINES, plf-ap, v. WILLIAM L. CAINES, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal