Matter of Nakia C. v. Johnny F.R.

132 A.D.3d 531, 17 N.Y.S.3d 859
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2015
Docket15917
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 531 (Matter of Nakia C. v. Johnny F.R.) 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 Nakia C. v. Johnny F.R., 132 A.D.3d 531, 17 N.Y.S.3d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2014, which, upon remand, found aggravating circumstances and imposed a five-year order of protection against respondent, based on his use of a dangerous instrument against petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that aggravating circumstances existed to warrant the imposition of a five-year order of protection against respondent is supported by the record (see Family Ct Act §§ 827 [a] [vii]; 842). On the prior appeal (112 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2013]), we found, inter alia, that the Family Court erred in determining that there were no aggravating circumstances that would permit it to impose an order of protection for a duration longer than two years. We concluded that under the *532 definition of a “dangerous instrument,” there is “no requirement that the person using the instrument intend to cause serious physical injury” (id. at 539; see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). We decline to reduce the duration of the order of protection, as the presence of aggravating circumstances indicates that a period of more than two years is necessary.

Respondent’s request for vacatur of the finding that he had committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, vacatur of the finding would not require a reduction in the duration of the order of protection, which was based on the offense of reckless endangerment in the second degree (see e.g. Matter of Liu v Yip, 127 AD3d 1196 [2d Dept 2015]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Kathryn K. v. Derek S.
2021 NY Slip Op 06042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Kosmides v. Sine
2021 NY Slip Op 03910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Jaynie S. v. Gaetano D.
134 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 531, 17 N.Y.S.3d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nakia-c-v-johnny-fr-nyappdiv-2015.