pretend it's hot sauce...

On Aug 25, 7:28 am, billbrock <billbrock1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 24, 11:23 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That was history.

The one I am citing is the new case.

Sam Sloan

Let's discuss history:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_07849.htm

Matter of Rankoth v Sloan
2007 NY Slip Op 07849 [44 AD3d 863]
October 16, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
Law =A7 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007

In the Matter of Dayawathie Rankoth, Respondent,
v
Samuel Sloan, Appellant.

=97[*1] Pauline E. Braun, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, N.Y.
(Elizabeth L. Smith, Robyn F. Tarnofsky, and Doris F. Bernhardt of
counsel), for respondent.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8,
the appeal is from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens
County (Modica, J.), dated August 3, 2006, which, after a hearing and
upon a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of
disorderly conduct and two separate offenses of harassment in the
second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the
petitioner and three of her children until November 28, 2010.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or
disbursements.

Whether the appellant committed a cognizable family offense was a
disputed factual issue, and the determination of the Family Court, as
the trier of fact, regarding credibility of the witnesses is entitled
to great weight (see Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d 482
[2006]; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583, 584 [2005]).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the
credible evidence supports the Family Court's determination that the
appellant committed the offense of disorderly conduct and two separate
offenses of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance
of the order of protection (see Family Ct Act =A7 832; Matter of
Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d 482 [2006]).

Moreover, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the
existence of aggravating circumstances (see Matter of Charles v
Charles, 21 AD3d 487 [2005]; Family Ct Act =A7 827 [a] [vii]).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection
to remain in effect until November 28, 2010 (see Family Ct Act =A7
842).
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Dillon, JJ., concur.

...and pretend this order was not published.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thank you Bill Brock for your One Penny book!!!
    ... Matter of Rankoth v Sloan ... In the Matter of Dayawathie Rankoth, Respondent, ... In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, ... the appeal is from an order of protection of the Family Court, ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: Thank you Bill Brock for your One Penny book!!!
    ... Brockfor falsely calling me a child molester thousands of times. ... In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, ... the appeal is from an order of protection of the Family Court, ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: Radio Designers Handbook
    ... publication. ... 'Reprints' don't 'reset' the clock and it doesn't matter ... protection in other contries as at home. ... Only to the extent it also complies with copyright law of the country ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: Copy protection for a .NET application
    ... With respect, it does not matter. ... hardlock method with valid or not. ... is doing - you still have to test the return of the blackbox somewhere. ... > Not all protection depends on an IF statement. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Copy protection for a .NET application
    ... With respect, it does not matter. ... hardlock method with valid or not. ... is doing - you still have to test the return of the blackbox somewhere. ... > Not all protection depends on an IF statement. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
Loading