IN RE: an Article 8 Family Offense Proceeding B.K. (Petitioner) (2026)

On February 20, 2026, B. K. filed an Amended Petition for Order of Protection.

In determining whether a petition states a cause of action, the rule that the facts alleged are presumed to be true and are to be accorded every favorable inference does not apply to allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions, as well as factual claims either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence (see Uzamere v Hochul, 240 AD3d 1009, 1010-1011 [3d Dept 2025]; SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 AD2d 328, 331 [2d Dept 1987]). Although used sparingly, this Court has the power to dismiss a proceeding sua sponte the Court when extraordinary circumstances exist (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v St. Louis, 229 AD3d 116, 119 [2d Dept 2024]).

This Court finds that the allegations set forth in the Amended Petition are inherently incredible such that they fail to state a viable cause of action for the relief sought. The Court also finds that, given the inherently incredible nature of the allegations, there exists extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the Amended Petition.¹

While this dismissal is without prejudice, based on sheer number of family offense petitions recently filed, the Court in its discretion, orders that petitioner is, for a period of five years, permanently enjoined and restrained from commencing legal proceedings against respondent without first having obtained prior consent from the Court (see He v Xiaokang Xu, 183 AD3d 1145, 1145-1146 [3d Dept 2020]; Xiaoling Shirley He v Xiaokang Xu, 126 AD3d 1052, 1053 [3d Dept 2015]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Amended Petition is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED petitioner is, for a period of five years from the date of this order, enjoined and restrained from commencing legal proceedings against respondent without first having obtained prior approval from the Court.

Dated: March 3, 2026

Hon. Jessica R. Wilcox

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Amended Petition alleges, among other things, that respondent — a former roommate - used state of the art tracking technology, placed devices around and inside petitioner's home, and flew reaper drones 24-hours a day overhead, all of which were used to deploy military-grade neurological weapons resulting the transmission of radio and microwave radiation, all aimed at causing severe brain trauma. Petitioner also alleges that in September 2017, respondent attempted to poison petitioner while petitioner was awaiting to board a flight to Germany and that, since August 2025, respondent has been using advanced generative artificially intelligence chat bots to harass petitioner.

Jessica R. Wilcox, J.