Matter of Lystra Fatimah N. v. Rafael M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Lystra Fatimah N. v. Rafael M.

122 A.D.3d 499, 997 N.Y.S.2d 624

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 499 (Matter of Lystra Fatimah N. v. Rafael M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Lystra Fatimah N. v. Rafael M., 122 A.D.3d 499, 997 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Faul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection for one year, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order of protection vacated.

The court found that respondent committed acts constituting the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Eenal Law § 240.30) based on petitioner’s testimony that on two specific occasions, and many other times, respondent made telephone calls in which he threatened her. While the court’s findings are amply supported by the record, the statutory language that a communication will constitute “aggravated harassment in the second degree when [made] with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person” has since been found to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (People v Golb, 23 NY3d 455, 465-468 [2014]), requiring that the order be vacated.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Faul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2013, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection for one year, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order of protection vacated.

The court found that respondent committed acts constituting the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Eenal Law § 240.30) based on petitioner’s testimony that on two specific occasions, and many other times, respondent made telephone calls in which he threatened her. While the court’s findings are amply supported by the record, the statutory language that a communication will constitute “aggravated harassment in the second degree when [made] with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person” has since been found to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (People v Golb, 23 NY3d 455, 465-468 [2014]), requiring that the order be vacated.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 499, 997 N.Y.S.2d 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lystra-fatimah-n-v-rafael-m-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack