Tyrone T. v. Katherine M.

78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 56
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 18, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 545 (Tyrone T. v. Katherine 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
Tyrone T. v. Katherine M., 78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about July 21, 2009, which dismissed petitioner’s family offense petition seeking an order of protection against respondent on the ground that petitioner failed to sufficiently establish a family offense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that he was the boyfriend of respondent’s sister, and a friend of respondent, was insufficient to establish an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (1) (e) so as to afford the Family Court jurisdiction over this matter (see Sponsor’s Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2008, ch 326; Matter of Seye v Lamar, 72 AD3d 975 [2010]; Matter of Mark W. v Damion W., 25 Misc 3d 1148 [Fam Ct, Kings County 2009]; Matter of K.J. v K.K., 23 Misc 3d 754, 758-759 [Fam Ct, Orange County 2009]).

In any event, assuming the court had jurisdiction, petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of first degree harassment against him because his alleged fear that respondent would harm him was not objectively reasonable (see Penal Law § 240.25; People v Demisse, 24 AD3d 118, 119 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 833 [2006]). Respondent’s remark that “things would get ugly” if petitioner did not return her property could not be reasonably interpreted as a threat, especially given that they had been friends and that petitioner was dating respondent’s sister. Further, petitioner never showed that respondent had ever threatened to shoot him with a gun, or that she would use her gun for purposes beyond the duties of her job as a corrections officer. That petitioner would socialize with respondent at her home even after he filed the petition further undermines any contention of fear. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, McGuire, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of A.G. v. K.V.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Matter of JB (LI)
2024 NY Slip Op 51357(U) (New York Family Court, 2024)
Matter of Veronica C. v. Ariann D.
2020 NY Slip Op 3612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Richardson v. Hawker
2020 NY Slip Op 3392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Reina C. v. Yankel F.
2018 NY Slip Op 8087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Ishmael D. v. Yaw B.
2018 NY Slip Op 2568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Shank v. Miller
2017 NY Slip Op 2432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Anita C. v. Johana S.
48 Misc. 3d 619 (NYC Family Court, 2015)
Jose M. v. Angel V.
99 A.D.3d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Parrella v. Freely
90 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple
83 A.D.3d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrone-t-v-katherine-m-nyappdiv-2010.