IN RE: Carrie E. RITTER (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Stephan D. Ritter appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Westchester County (Stephanie J. Lammers, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated April 21, 2022.  The order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Stephan D. Ritter committed the family offense of harassment, directed him, inter alia, to refrain from harassing the petitioner until and including October 21, 2022.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the appellant.  After a hearing, the Family Court found that the appellant had committed the family offense of harassment based upon the testimony of the petitioner.  The court issued an order of protection directing the appellant, inter alia, to refrain from harassing the petitioner until and including October 21, 2022.

Although the order of protection has expired by its own terms, the appeal from that order has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 673, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143;  Matter of Cook v. Berehowsky, 211 A.D.3d 727, 728, 179 N.Y.S.3d 721).

The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832;  see Matter of Saquipay v. Puzhi, 160 A.D.3d 879, 879, 74 N.Y.S.3d 329;  Matter of Shank v. Shank, 155 A.D.3d 875, 876, 63 N.Y.S.3d 719).  “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record” (Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149).

Here, although the Family Court did not specify the degree of harassment under Family Court Act § 812(1) that the appellant committed, the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Kalyan v. Trasybule, 189 A.D.3d 1046, 136 N.Y.S.3d 35).  A fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Yurewich v. Read, 209 A.D.3d 747, 748, 174 N.Y.S.3d 883).

BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.