Matter of Santos v. Matos
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Santos v Matos
2026 NY Slip Op 04312
July 8, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Magaly Santos, respondent,
v
Ovidio Matos, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.)
In the Matter of Emily Matos, respondent,
v
Ovidio Matos, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 8, 2026
2024-12326, 2024-12327, (Docket Nos. O-1021-24, O-1039-24)
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P.
William G. Ford
Barry E. Warhit
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
Ilene K. Graff, New City, NY, for respondent in Proceeding No. 1.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for respondent in Proceeding No. 2.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Ovidio Matos appeals from two orders of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), both dated November 6, 2024. The first order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Ovidio Matos committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Magaly Santos until and including November 6, 2026. The second order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Ovidio Matos committed the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, directed him, among other things, to stay away from Emily Matos until and including November 6, 2026.
ORDERED that the orders of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Magaly Santos (hereinafter the mother) and Ovidio Matos (hereinafter the father) are the parents of an adult child, Emily Santos (hereinafter the daughter). In April 2024, the mother and the daughter commenced these related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the father. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct against the mother and the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree against the daughter. The court issued orders of protection directing the father, inter alia, to stay away from the mother and the daughter until and including November 6, 2026. The father appeals.
"In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the family offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Matter of Nunez v Spellen, 235 AD3d 874, 875; see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and [*2]that court's determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal" (Matter of Nunez v Spellen, 235 AD3d at 875; see Matter of Lederman v Lederman, 208 AD3d 483, 484). Where, as here, the court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject events and chose to credit the testimony of one party over that of the other, its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Mohammed v Mohammed, 174 AD3d 615, 615-616; Matter of Diaz v Rodriguez, 164 AD3d 1340, 1340).
Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Family Court's finding that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct against the mother (Penal Law § 240.20; see generally Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d at 340) and the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree against the daughter (Penal Law §§ 120.45, 240.26). The court's determination was based upon its credibility assessments and is supported by the record (see Matter of Mohammed v Mohammed, 174 AD3d at 616; Matter of Zhuo Hong Zheng v Hsin Cheng, 144 AD3d 1166, 1167). Thus, the issuance of the orders of protection was warranted.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Santos v. Matos (Matter of Santos v. Matos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.