IN RE: John P. Norwood (2026)

Submitted—May 26, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

W/

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Raymi V. Ramseur–Usher, J.), dated June 11, 2024.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, and upon a finding that the respondent committed certain family offenses, granted the petition only to the extent of directing the respondent to comply with the terms of an order of protection for a period of six months.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In October 2020, the petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the respondent, with whom the petitioner had been in an intimate relationship.  The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that on or about October 28, 2020, the respondent had banged on the petitioner's apartment door and shouted threats.  In an order of fact-finding and disposition dated June 11, 2024, the Family Court, among other things, after a hearing, and upon a finding that the respondent committed certain family offenses, granted the petition only to the extent of directing the respondent to comply with the terms of an order of protection for a period of six months.  The court issued an order of protection in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent, which was made a part of the order of fact-finding and disposition, that required the respondent, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including December 11, 2024.  The petitioner appeals from the order of fact-finding and disposition.

“Upon a finding that a respondent engaged in conduct constituting a family offense, the Family Court is authorized to issue an order of fact-finding and disposition directing the issuance of an order of protection” (Matter of Jones v. Leneau, 234 AD3d 689, 690;  see Family Ct Act § 841[d] ).  The order of protection shall be “for a period not in excess of two years” unless, among other things, the court makes a finding “on the record of the existence of aggravating circumstances” (Family Ct Act § 842;  see id. § 827[a][vii];  Matter of Jones v. Leneau, 234 AD3d at 690).  An appropriate disposition in a family offense proceeding is one which is reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection and to eradicate the root of the family disturbance (see Matter of Pope v. Pope, 243 AD3d 914, 916;  Matter of Zaytseva v. Frazier, 214 AD3d 895, 897).

Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, there was insufficient evidence presented at the hearing to support a finding of aggravating circumstances warranting a five-year order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 827[a][vii];  842;  Matter of Masciello v. Masciello, 130 AD3d 626, 627), and the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that a longer period of protection was not reasonably necessary under the circumstances (see Matter of Pope v. Pope, 243 AD3d at 916;  Matter of Jones v. Leneau, 234 AD3d at 690).

The respondent's request for certain affirmative relief is not properly before this Court, as the respondent did not cross-appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see Matter of Bashier v. Adams, 217 AD3d 764, 765).

The respondent's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court