Opinion
10396
11-21-2019
In re DIANA A., Petitioner–Respondent, v. KAREEM E., Respondent–Appellant.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Curtis, Mallet–Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York (Hyuna Yong of counsel), for respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Curtis, Mallet–Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York (Hyuna Yong of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kern, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Referee), entered on or about March 27, 2019, which, after a fact-finding hearing, upon a finding of menacing in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, granted petitioner, Diana A., a final order of protection for a term of three years, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of menacing in the second degree and to reduce the order of protection to two years, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
A fair preponderance of the evidence established that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 832 ; Penal Law § 240.26 ). Petitioner established that after she terminated the parties' relationship, respondent continued to repeatedly and obsessively call, text and email her, over an extended period of time, despite being told that she no longer wished to have contact with him and her failing to respond (see Matter of Tamara A. v. Anthony Wayne S., 110 A.D.3d 560, 561, 974 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Victor S. v. Kareem J.S., 104 A.D.3d 405, 961 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Kritzia B. v. Onasis P., 113 A.D.3d 529, 978 N.Y.S.2d 846 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
However, the record does not support the finding of menacing in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.14[1] ). In addition, the order of protection is modified to expire after a term of two years, as there was no finding on the record that aggravating circumstances exist which would warrant an order of protection in excess of two years (see Matter of Jodi S. v. Jason T., 85 A.D.3d 1239, 925 N.Y.S.2d 211 [3d Dept. 2011] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.