IN RE: an Article 8 Family Offense Proceeding S.L. (2026)

Procedural History

On or about April 7, 2026, petitioner S.L. filed a Family Offense Petition against respondent T.L. alleging domestic violence and requesting that T.L. be excluded from the shared residence. On April 7, 2026, this Court issued a full stay away Temporary Order of Protection in favor of S.L. which excluded T.L. from the home and adjourned the matter for Return of Process on April 10, 2026. On April 10, 2026, the respondent appeared with counsel, acknowledged service, and requested a hearing that began that same date. The hearing then continued on April 23, 2026; April 24, 2026; May 6, 2026; May 8, 2026; and on May 21, 2026; and written summations by counsel were due June 1, 2026. The Temporary Order of Protection was extended on the same terms after each appearance on this matter. On consent of all parties and counsel, the hearing in this matter addressed both the exclusion and the underlying family offense petition.

Findings of Fact

As the trier of fact, this Court was in a unique position to hear the testimony of each of the parties, observe their demeanor, and evaluate their submitted evidence. The testimony of the petitioner S.L. was consistent, appropriately emotional, and corroborated with the submitted video and photographic evidence. In contrast, the testimony of respondent T.L. was inconsistent, self-serving, and incongruent with video and photographic evidence, including the evidence offered by T.L. himself. When T.L. was emotional on the stand, it was in an aggressive manner that only lead further credence to the arguments offered by the petitioner. In totality, the Court credits the testimony of the petitioner S.L. and discredits the testimony of the respondent T.L.

The petitioner testified to a number of incidents of domestic violence dating back to 2022. The credible testimony and evidence presented to the Court supports the following finding of facts.

The parties began dating in 2020, were married in 2022, have a nine-month-old daughter in common, J., who was born on XX/XX/2025, and have a divorce matter currently pending in another court.

In December of 2022, the petitioner questioned the respondent about where he had been the night before, which prompted T.L. to kick her while she was lying on the bed, push her into the bedroom, grab her by the neck and choke her, and then push her to the floor. The petitioner had bruises on her arms following this incident and it left her shocked and scared.

In or about the winter of 2023, the respondent was angry when he returned to their home and became aggressive with the petitioner. He pushed S.L. onto the floor and then he got on top of her with his hand on her neck, contorting her neck into an awkward position which restricted her breathing and made her fear for her life.

One night in or about August 2023, the respondent returned home at about 2:00 AM after having been gone for several hours and attacked the petitioner. He lunged at her, grabbed and put pressure on her neck, which restricted her breathing, causing her pain and fear.

On or about September 10, 2023, the respondent pushed the petitioner into a cupboard, threw her to the ground, and held himself on top of her. S.L. testified that she suffered pain on the back of her head and a large laceration on her back which she sought treatment for at urgent care. S.L. also offered into evidence photos showing the large, dark red laceration on her back from this incident as Petitioner's Exhibit 15A and 15B.

On or about January 11, 2024, the respondent angrily pushed the petitioner into the closet of their bedroom, applied his hands to her throat, neck, and chest, and pinned her in the closet. S.L. flailed her arms while she fought to get out from his grasp, afraid she would lose consciousness during the incident.

In or about February of 2024, the petitioner again asked the respondent where he had been after he returned home, which angered T.L. He grabbed her, led her into the bedroom, pushed her into the wall, and struck her in the nose with a cell phone. S.L. testified that she had two black eyes, marks on her face and chin, and bruising on her arms after this incident. S.L. also offered into evidence several photographs from shortly after the incident which demonstrated the same injuries she testified to, as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5. She also offered into evidence two photos of her face taken in the days following the incident, Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17, showing the bruising around her eyes swelling and growing much darker. S.L. further testified that soon after she suffered these injuries she was let go from her job of ten years without any concrete reason being given, clearly implying that she believed her visible injuries played a role in her dismissal.

On or about May 30, 2024, the petitioner asked the respondent about an upcoming 24-hour trip to Miami he had planned and she explained that she was worried about him seeing a woman there who he had romantic history with. T.L. responded that he "could have her suck his dick if [he] wanted" and S.L. retorted that the woman in Miami "has a husband who could shoot you." Tr. 04/10/26 at 29, lines 15-18. This led to T.L. exclaiming that S.L. wanted this woman's husband to kill him, and T.L. then choking S.L. and proceeding to push her "through the wall." Tr. 04/10/26 at 29, lines 18-24. S.L. submitted into evidence a short video that showed the wall she was pushed through as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The short video shows a large hole in the wall where a significant piece of the drywall had been knocked out, consistent with a person being shoved into the wall with heavy force. The petitioner also testified that she suffered bruises on her arms and a knot on the back right side of the back of her head and offered into evidence photos showing injuries to her arms at that time as Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9.

On or about July 18, 2025, the petitioner was late in her pregnancy when the respondent attacked her. Photos admitted into evidence by the Petitioner showed a large red mark on her arm (Petitioner's Exhibit 10) and a ripped shirt (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) which she suffered as a result of this incident.

On or about September 8, 2025, the petitioner was holding the baby, who was only seven days old at the time, when the respondent approached her and "popped her in the mouth," hitting her in the mouth causing bruising on her inner lip. Tr. 04/10/26 at 31, lines 4-11. The petitioner called 911 after she was hit and the respondent left the home. The petitioner testified that when the police arrived she was fearful about getting T.L. in trouble and any further escalation of violence that might result from that, so she minimized the incident in her conversation with the police at that time, explained that she did not want to make a formal report, and asked them to leave. Counsel for the respondent offered into evidence a copy of the Domestic Incident Report the officers made in responding to that 911 call as Respondent's Exhibit A.

On or about November 24, 2025, the petitioner was on the phone speaking with a friend when the respondent entered the room, cursed at her, and asked "who are you telling my fucking business to?" Concerned for the baby in the room S.L. went to pick up J. from the bassinet, and about that time T.L. attempted to grab the phone out of her hand. During the tussle, the baby fell out of her mother's arms, onto then bed and then onto the floor.

In or about December 2025 or January 2026, the respondent removed the door handles from the parties' bedroom door which prevented her from being able to enter the bedroom.

On or about January 2, 2026, the petitioner was bitten in the face by the respondent when T.L. attempted to take S.L.'s phone out of her hands.

On or about March 7, 2026, the petitioner took their baby to the library and farmers' market but was then confronted by the respondent who alleged that she was actually at a hotel instead during this time and engaged in infidelity.

On or about March 29, 2026, the respondent held a hot frying pan like a tennis racket, cornered her by standing about a foot and a half in front of her, and told the petitioner that she was a lazy wife who should be cooking.

On or about March 31, 2026, the respondent aggressively pulled the petitioner's hair while screaming at her "you think this is a fucking game?" multiple times. T.L. also accused her of "breaking [his] shit" and the petitioner was knocked to the floor. Video footage from a nanny cam aimed at the baby's crib captured the audio of this incident which was offered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 14.

On or about April 6, 2026, the petitioner left the home and, fearful for the safety of herself and her baby because of T.L.'s pattern of violent behavior, filed the instant family offense petition.

Analysis

In an Article 8 family offense proceeding, "the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence." See Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Joseph v. Joseph, 180 AD3d 908, 908, 116 N.Y.S.3d 612 [2d Dept. 2020]. "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court." Matter of Straight v. Grant, 184 AD3d 647, 648, 123 N.Y.S.3d 532 [2d Dept. 2020], citing Matter of McGregor v. Ferguson, 167 AD3d 897, 88 N.Y.S.3d 342 [2d Dept. 2018]. When a Family Court is "presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject events, and chose to credit the testimony of one party over that of the other, its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record." Matter of Straight v. Grant, 184 AD3d at 648, citing Matter of Mohammed v. Mohammed, 174 AD3d 615, 101 N.Y.S.3d 884 [2d Dept. 2019]. See also Hirsch v Kairey, 194 AD3d 936, 937 [2d Dept 2021].

In this matter, the evidence supporting the Petitioner's case was overwhelming. There was no dispute that T.L. and S.L. quarreled often, as T.L. himself testified that the parties had arguments and fights four or five times per week. Tr. 05/21/26 at 11, line 20. T.L. contended that his wife was a consistent instigator, and while S.L. did testify to various times when she questioned her husband about her concerns about his behavior, nothing from T.L.'s testimony discredited S.L.'s testimony, nor did any of T.L.'s explanations remotely justify his flagrant behavior and the serious physical violence that S.L. suffered.

One of the most striking pieces of evidence that S.L. presented was short video showing the large hole that was made in the wall of their home after T.L. shoved her through the wall with heavy force on or about May 30, 2024. In trying to explain this damning evidence, T.L. alleged that one day he was late getting ready for work and that while running around the home while wearing socks he slipped and fell into the wall which caused the damage. While this explanation alone was not credible, T.L. further strained credulity by contending that the hole in the wall was so large because the offered short video of it was allegedly taken after the handyman for the building had deliberately made the hole larger in an effort to repair it. This explanation was unconvincing to the Court, including because of the irregular, organic shape of the hole which would not be deliberately created as part of a repair.

Even when presented with direct photo, video and audio recordings of his behavior, T.L. had no credible explanation. Regarding the numerous photos of injuries that S.L. suffered, T.L. consistently denied having seen any such injuries himself and said he could not explain the photos. Counsel for T.L. implied, unconvincingly, and with no evidence to support the assertion, that the photos may have been photoshopped or fabricated in some other way.

T.L. testified that the parties do not argue in front of the child, J. When questioned about the video that was captured by their nanny cam on or about March 31, 2026, T.L.'s testimony did not align with the reality of the evidence presented. The video clearly captured T.L. yelling at S.L. in the presence of the child and audio captured supports that there was a physical confrontation. Even after the recording in question was played for him on cross examination, T.L. denied that he was yelling in the video, even though he clearly was. Instead, he contended that the video reflected his "normal voice" and that he "tend[s] to talk loud." Tr. 05/21/26 at 23, line 20. It should be noted that during the proceedings there was nothing notable about T.L.'s volume.¹ Moreover, T.L.'s testimony did not explain his various moments of obviously aggressive tone, including as captured on the videos submitted as Exhibits Petitioner's 14 and Respondent's B11.

Taking T.L.'s denial of his aggression when presented with direct evidence of it and the copious amounts of other evidence presented, the Court has no reason to credit T.L.'s claims that he is not someone who seeks confrontation and that S.L. is the aggressor in the relationship. The Court notes that painting the victim as aggressor is a common strategy employed by abusers to deflect allegations of abuse known as DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). See Harsey, Sarah J.; Zurbriggen, Eillen L; & Freyd, Jennifer J.; Perpetrator Responses to Victim Confrontation: DARVO and Victim Self-Blame, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26:6, [2017].

T.L.'s testimony was at times contradictory, further undermining his credibility. He testified that he and his wife "don't even have . . . a lot of verbal . . . abusive . . . language that goes back in forth in the house," and that he was taught "not to harm the people that you love. If I had called my wife out of her name, that would be disrespectful and it would be hurtful to her. So I didn't even that, let alone anything physical with regard to hitting my wife, hurting my wife etc." Tr. 05/08/26 at 60, lines 6-20. But, less than two weeks later, T.L. testified that he and his wife "have arguments and fights about four or five times a week," (Tr. 05/21/26 at 11, line 20) and that he often tells S.L. during arguments "If you were on fire, I would not piss on you," (Id. at 41, lines 12 through 13) leading the Court to conclude he is far from the loving, supportive husband he attempted to portray.

T.L.'s defense argued that S.L. was not credible because she had not made reports to the police or sought medical treatment after suffering violence at the hand of her husband. However, S.L. credibly testified and explained the many reasons why she was reluctant to make such reports, including her shame and fear. Her failures to report are hallmarks of domestic violence and do not detract from her credibility. See Infographic of Findings from the 2024 National Crime Victimization Survey about Domestic Violence in the U.S.; https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/domesticviolence_2024.pdf; Piquero, A. R., & Wheeler, A. (2024); Toward a better estimate of domestic violence in America. Council on Criminal Justice; https://counciloncj.org/toward-a-better-estimate-of-domestic-violence-in-america/; Gracia E.,

Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: towards an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2004; 58:536-537.

In reality, the cross-examination that S.L. was subjected to as part of this hearing and the contentions made by counsel for T.L. are textbook examples of why domestic violence victims are so hesitant to report in the first place. S.L. was asked "what was the reason you didn't leave the home?" and when she replied that she was "trying to maintain my family at the time" counsel for T.L. questioned what she meant by that and stated and "I don't know what you mean." Id. at 23, lines 14-19. "Was there a reason you did not want to get your husband in trouble?" Id. at 36, line 25, to 37, line 1. S.L. was asked if, following the attack on February 19, 2024, she "[ran] out of the room," if she remained in the home, and why she did not "call the police for this incident," implying S.L. was less credible in her allegations because she did not run or report them at that time. Tr. 05/06/26 at 9, lines 3-22. S.L. was also asked "after this incident, did you sleep in the same bed with T.L. then?" Id. at 10, lines 13-14. She was also asked why she did not seek medical treatment after having received black eyes from an assault. Id. at 14, lines 21-25. These same types of questions were also then repeated for each of the different dates of assault S.L. testified to with implication that S.L.'s decisions not to leave her abuser should be seen as undermining her credibility. See Yamawaki, N., Ochoa-Shipp, M., Pulsipher, C., Harlos, A., & Swindler, S. (2012), Perceptions of Domestic Violence: The Effects of Domestic Violence Myths, Victim's Relationship With Her Abuser, and the Decision to Return to Her Abuser: The Effects of Domestic Violence Myths, Victim's Relationship With Her Abuser, and the Decision to Return to Her Abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(16), 3195-3212. The cross exam of S.L. became quite repetitive at times when asking about the specifics of the physical attacks she suffered, presumably intended to see if her testimony would be insufficiently detailed and inconsistent as to not be credible. S.L. was asked regarding the incident in February 2024, over two years prior to the testimony, what her hairstyle was at that time and if when T.L. "grabbed [her] by the hair did it feel like it was both hands or . . . just one hand?" Tr. 04/24/26 at 48, lines 16 through 18. S.L. was also asked many questions about overly specific details about where the parties were positioned during the incidents, such as asking "were you seated? Were you laying on the bed, standing by the window or something?" And "when T.L. came into the bedroom, where was he standing? Was he by the doorway? Was he by . . . the window?" Id. at 52, line 19 through 53, line 1. The cross-examination had the unintended effect of reinforcing S.L.'s credibility. Despite distressing questions about the minute details of every incident, S.L. notably chose her words very carefully and expressly stated that she was being careful to be as accurate as possible in answering the exact questions put before her, including when applicable stating what she could not recall or be sure of. S.L.'s clear testimony, both what she could recall and what she could not, in the face of protracted cross, further supports the Court's finding that she is far more credible than T.L.

In contrast, T.L. became clearly more agitated during his direct testimony examination, including at one point lashing out after counsel for S.L. objected to a question that his attorney had asked him, and when the Court instructed everyone to "hold on" so the objection could be addressed, T.L. turned to look directly at opposing counsel and forcefully exclaimed at him "Can I answer my own question, please?," in such a tone reflecting that he was incredulous that counsel dare interrupt him. Tr. 06/05/26 at 58-59. T.L. reacted in such an explosive way to a simple objection during his testimony, even though counsel was merely objecting in same tone and manner that both attorneys had done many times during the days of prior testimony by S.L. that T.L. had already observed.

The violence that S.L. testified to was not of an isolated incident. The frequency, volume, and sporadic nature of attacks made her feel shocked, scared and unsafe. While T.L.'s violence towards her was already a serious problem, she clearly was concerned that things could get even worse and his violence could escalate further. She was also understandably concerned for the baby's safety as J. had already been directly exposed to a number of these incidents. The evidence presented has made it clear that S.L. cannot remain safely in the home with T.L. present, and that excluding T.L. from the home is necessary and appropriate in these circumstances.

The petitioner has demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree, harassment in the first and second degrees, menacing in the second and third degrees, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. The petitioner has also demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence that aggravated circumstances exist which warrant the issuance of a five-year order of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 827(a)(vii). Specifically, the petitioner has demonstrated that the respondent caused physical injury to her, that he exposed the baby to him attacking the petitioner including one incident where S.L. was holding week-old J. when T.L. struck her in the face. Such behavior constitutes an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner and members of her household, including their child.

Decision and Order

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby

ORDERED that the respondent T.L. shall, for a period not in excess of five years, observe the conditions of behavior specified in the Order of Protection entered and annexed to and made a part of this order.

Dated: June 29, 2026

ENTER:

Hon. Nisha Menon

FOOTNOTES

1.   When reviewing the same video, T.L.'s testified that he could not have pulled S.L.'s hair because she was still wearing a "hair net" (Tr 05/21/26 at 41, lines 2 through 6) further undermining his credibility as the video clearly demonstrates, however, that S.L.'s hair was loose and she was not wearing a hair net or bonnet.

Nisha Menon, J.