An order of protection obtained by a wife against her husband did not contain sufficient proof that his alleged disorderly conduct inside their home "was intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm," the Second Department has held.
July 29, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
An order of protection obtained by a wife against her husband did not contain sufficient proof that his alleged disorderly conduct inside their home "was intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm."
The Appellate Division, Second Department, vacated the order, using its July 24 ruling to demonstrate what was required for establishing disorderly conduct and forming the basis of a family offense adjudication.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
