Opinion
01-29-2015
In re ELIZABETH T., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ANDREW T., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. White, Quinlan & Stanley, LLP, Garden City (Terence M. Quinlan of counsel), for respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
White, Quinlan & Stanley, LLP, Garden City (Terence M. Quinlan of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about December 10, 2013, which denied respondent's motion to vacate a two-year order of protection in petitioner's favor, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order of protection vacated.
The order of protection is vacated because, even though it was properly entered upon respondent's failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Court of Appeals has since determined that the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30[1] ), upon which this particular order of protection was based, “is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” (People v. Golb, 23 N.Y.3d 455, 467, 991 N.Y.S.2d 792, 15 N.E.3d 805 [2014] ; see Matter of Lystra Fatimah N. v. Rafael M., 122 A.D.3d 499, 997 N.Y.S.2d 624 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Arnold v. Arnold, 119 A.D.3d 938, 939, 989 N.Y.S.2d 879 [2d Dept.2014] ).GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.