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: Simon DEITH, respondent, v. Susan DEITH, appellant.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Foskey, J.), dated January 7, 2004, which, after a hearing, in effect, found that she committed family offenses, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from her son, and to refrain from assaulting, stalking, harassing, menacing, or threatening him, and further directed her, among other things, to refrain from assaulting, stalking, harassing, menacing, or threatening the father and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated May 25, 2004, as extended the order of protection until May 25, 2005.
ORDERED that the orders are modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof pertaining to the parties' son; as so modified, the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the orders of protection have now expired by their terms, the appeals from the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed a family offense are not academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from such an adjudication (see Matter of Cardarelli v. Cardarelli, 277 A.D.2d 225, 716 N.Y.S.2d 680; Matter of Whittemore v. Lloyd, 266 A.D.2d 305, 698 N.Y.S.2d 275; Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568).
In this case, the Family Court abused its discretion in allowing the son to testify in camera outside the presence of the mother or her counsel (see Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Social Servs., 186 A.D.2d 136, 588 N.Y.S.2d 191). Since there is insufficient admissible evidence to establish the facts that were alleged in the petition with respect to the son without that testimony, the orders of protection must be modified with respect to the parties' son (see Family Ct. Act § 834; Whittemore v. Lloyd, supra ).
The mother's remaining contentions either have been rendered academic or are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 21, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)