Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: M.M., Petitioner–Respondent, v. R.G., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Genna D. Teitelbaum, Ref.), entered on or about April 26, 2024, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent father committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against his child, granted a nine-month order of protection in favor of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although the order of protection has expired by its own terms, given that the order finding that the father committed family offenses still may impose significant enduring consequences upon him, this appeal is not rendered moot (see Matter of D.C. v. J.J.G., 236 A.D.3d 539, 539, 231 N.Y.S.3d 18 [1st Dept 2025]).
Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent, her husband, committed the act of harassment in the second degree by making threats of physical violence against their then six-year-old child while having the requisite intent to harass, annoy, or alarm him (Family Court Act § 832; see Matter of I.E. v. J.I., 233 A.D.3d 608, 609, 222 N.Y.S.3d 444 [1st Dept 2024]). When the child began to cry in response to the father's threats, the father repeated the same threat several more times. The mere fact that the father may have had a legitimate purpose in calling the mother – namely, to exercise his parenting time with the child – does not shield him from liability for threats against the child that followed (see People v. Tiffany, 186 Misc.2d 917, 921–922, 721 N.Y.S.2d 741 [Crim Ct, N.Y. County 2001]).
Family Court's determination that the mother was a credible witness is entitled to great deference, and there is no basis to disturb its findings (see Matter of Judith L.C. v. Lawrence Y., 179 A.D.3d 616, 616, 118 N.Y.S.3d 573 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 911, 2020 WL 5047416 [2020]). The trial provided the court with ample opportunity to assess the parties’ credibility and demeanor, and both parties had an opportunity to testify and subject each other to cross-examination.
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5595
Decided: January 15, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)