IN RE: TARA N. P.-T. (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of protection issued in favor of petitioner, who is respondent's wife, and petitioner's children in connection with Family Court's determination that respondent committed acts constituting various family offenses (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]). We affirm. Contrary to respondent's contention, the court sufficiently stated the facts it deemed essential to its decision (cf. Matter of Rocco v. Rocco, 78 A.D.3d 1670, 1671, 910 N.Y.S.2d 826 [4th Dept. 2010]; see generally CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a]). The court, however, did not specify the subsections of the criminal statutes upon which it based its findings that respondent had committed the family offenses of “disorderly conduct, harassment, and aggravated harassment.” Exercising our independent review power (see Matter of Telles v. Dewind, 140 A.D.3d 1701, 1701, 34 N.Y.S.3d 299 [4th Dept. 2016]), we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1]; Telles, 140 A.D.3d at 1702, 34 N.Y.S.3d 299), harassment in the second degree (see § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Cousineau v. Ranieri, 185 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 128 N.Y.S.3d 120 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 917, 2020 WL 6788983 [2020]), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (see § 240.30 [1] [a]; Matter of Paliani v. Selapack, 178 A.D.3d 1425, 1425-1426, 112 N.Y.S.3d 670 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905, 2020 WL 3056407 [2020]). We have reviewed respondent's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.