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: Tyrone T., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Katherine M., Respondent-Respondent.
_
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about July 21, 2009, which dismissed petitioner's family offense petition seeking an order of protection against respondent on the ground that petitioner failed to sufficiently establish a family offense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's claim that he was the boyfriend of respondent's sister, and a friend of respondent, was insufficient to establish an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) so as to afford the Family Court jurisdiction over this matter (see Sponsor's Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2008 ch 326; Matter of Seye v. Lamar, 72 AD3d 975 [2010]; Matter of Mark W. v. Damion W., 25 Misc.3d 1148 [Fam Ct, Kings County 2009]; Matter of K.J. v. K.K., 23 Misc.3d 754, 758-759 [Fam Ct, Orange County 2009] ).
In any event, assuming the court had jurisdiction, petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of first degree harassment against him because his alleged fear that respondent would harm him was not objectively reasonable (see Penal Law § 240.25; People v. Demisse, 24 AD3d 118, 119 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 833 [2006] ). Respondent's remark that “things would get ugly” if petitioner did not return her property could not be reasonably interpreted as a threat, especially given that they had been friends and that petitioner was dating respondent's sister. Further, petitioner never showed that respondent had ever threatened to shoot him with a gun, or that she would use her gun for purposes beyond the duties of her job as a corrections officer. That petitioner would socialize with respondent at her home even after he filed the petition further undermines any contention of fear.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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: 3658
Decided: November 18, 2010
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)