Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt
2012 NY Slip Op 03003 [94 AD3d 1436]
April 20, 2012
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2012


In the Matter of Ursula M. Marquardt, Respondent, v Paul D.Marquardt, Appellant.

[*1]Brian P. Degnan, Batavia, for respondent-appellant.

Charles J. Greenberg, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), enteredMarch 14, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order, inter alia,found that respondent had committed acts constituting the family offense of disorderly conduct.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, respondent appealsfrom an order that, inter alia, determined that he committed the family offense of disorderlyconduct (Penal Law § 240.20) against petitioner on two occasions. At the beginning of thefact-finding hearing, respondent requested that Family Court limit the proof to events occurringwithin two years prior to the filing of the petition. Both instances of disorderly conduct fallwithin that time period. Respondent therefore waived his contention that he was denied dueprocess based on the court's consideration of alleged instances of disorderly conduct thatoccurred during that time period and his further contention that the proceeding is barred bylaches or the statute of limitations (seegenerally Lahren v Boehmer Transp. Corp., 49 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2008]; Cerilli vKezis, 306 AD2d 430 [2003]).

Contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that petitioner established by apreponderance of the evidence that respondent engaged in acts constituting disorderly conduct(see Matter of Hagopian vHagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]). The court's "assessment of the credibility ofthe witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the court was entitled to credit the testimony of[petitioner] over that of [respondent]" (Matter of Scroger v Scroger, 68 AD3d 1777, 1778 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 705 [2010]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers andMartoche, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.