Matter of Teanna P. v. David M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Teanna P. v. David M.

134 A.D.3d 654, 21 N.Y.S.3d 622

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 2015·No. 16516·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David Gilman, J.H.O.), *655 entered on or about December 16, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection and vacated a temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that petitioner failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s alleged conduct established a family offense (see Matter of Rafael F. v Pedro Pablo N., 106 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2013]). Petitioner alleged that respondent walked by her apartment building when she was in the front yard and stared at her in a way that made her feel scared and intimidated. She also asserted that respondent came to a store where she was, walked up to within two feet of her and called her a derogatory name. Even accepting these allegations as true, they do not support a determination that respondent’s conduct constituted either harassment in the second degree or disorderly conduct (see Matter of Christine P. v Machiste Q., 124 AD3d 531 [1st Dept 2015]; Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David Gilman, J.H.O.), *655 entered on or about December 16, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection and vacated a temporary order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that petitioner failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s alleged conduct established a family offense (see Matter of Rafael F. v Pedro Pablo N., 106 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2013]). Petitioner alleged that respondent walked by her apartment building when she was in the front yard and stared at her in a way that made her feel scared and intimidated. She also asserted that respondent came to a store where she was, walked up to within two feet of her and called her a derogatory name. Even accepting these allegations as true, they do not support a determination that respondent’s conduct constituted either harassment in the second degree or disorderly conduct (see Matter of Christine P. v Machiste Q., 124 AD3d 531 [1st Dept 2015]; Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Matter of Teanna P. v. David M., 134 A.D.3d 654, 21 N.Y.S.3d 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 654 (Matter of Teanna P. v. David M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related