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 the Matterof Samuel J. J., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Sofia L. S., Respondent–Appellant.
A
.2022–02828
2022–02830
-
A-
B
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel J. J., respondent pro se.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2022, which dismissed petitioner's violation petition without prejudice and vacated the temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 15, 2022, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken by a nonaggrieved party. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 15, 2022, which, upon reargument, adhered to the court's prior dismissal of the violation petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
Family Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's violation petition without prejudice. The record shows that petitioner withdrew that petition after Family Court urged the parties to consider settlement. Moreover, respondent, who was represented by counsel, consented to the entry of the civil order of protection directing her to stay away from and not contact petitioner until June 14, 2024. This resolved the underlying family offense petition. Furthermore, respondent made no showing that special circumstances existed or that petitioner agreed to the discontinuance only to avoid an adverse determination in the family offense proceeding, and thus, there was no reason to order the voluntary discontinuance with prejudice (see Eugenia VI Venture Holdings, Ltd. v MapleWood Equity Partners, L.P., 38 AD3d 264, 265 [1st Dept 2007] ).
The appeal from the issuance of the civil order of protection is dismissed, as appellant consented to the order and therefore is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 (see e.g. Matter of Gabrielle N.N. [Jacqueline N.T.], 171 AD3d 671, 672 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Tyshawn Jaraind C., 33 AD3d 488, 488 [1st Dept 2006] ).
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: 1740 8 1740 8 1740 8
Decided: February 28, 2023
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)