VC v. HC
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
257 A.D.2d 27 (1999)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In December 1994, VC (plaintiff) left the home she shared with her husband, HC (defendant) and their adult son (defendant) after suffering abuse. VC then sought a three-year order of protection excluding HC and the son from the home. An ex parte protective order was issued, and a fact-finding hearing was held. VC testified that HC had threatened to kill her multiple times and at one point shot her. VC also testified that HC and their son had consistently punched, hit, and slapped her. VC’s daughter and other adult son corroborated VC’s testimony. The family court then ended the hearing on the ground that sufficient evidence had been presented. VC objected, alleging that she had additional evidence to show the severity of the abuse. The objection was overruled. The family court informed HC and the son that if they admitted to harassing VC, then they could remain at the family residence until the disposition hearing. HC and the son agreed. However, the disposition was continuously postponed partly due to the inability to find an interpreter for VC, who was deaf. A disposition hearing was finally scheduled for July 17, 1996. However, a family court judge then determined that a disposition hearing was not necessary because VC had somewhere other than the shared home to stay and had the ability to receive exclusive occupancy of the home by filing a divorce action. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellerin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
