Opinion
2014-07-3
In the Matter of Melissa A. FERRUSI, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Shariff K. JAMES, Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered May 24, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order determined that respondent violated the terms of an order of protection. Emily A. Vella, Springville, for Respondent–Appellant. Southern Tier Legal Services, a Division of Legal Assistance of Western New York, Inc., Olean (Jessica L. Anderson of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered May 24, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order determined that respondent violated the terms of an order of protection.
Emily A. Vella, Springville, for Respondent–Appellant. Southern Tier Legal Services, a Division of Legal Assistance of Western New York, Inc., Olean (Jessica L. Anderson of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Wendy A. Tuttle, Attorney for the Child, Allegany.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent father willfully violated an order of protection directing him to stay away from the mother and the parties' child except during scheduled visitation. In appeal No. 1, the father appeals from an order finding, inter alia, that the mother met her burden of establishing the allegations in the petition and, in appeal No. 2, the father appeals from an order committing him to a jail term of six months, to be served consecutively to a jail term imposed upon his violation of a prior order of protection. Contrary to respondent's contention in appeal No. 1, the mother established by clear and convincing evidence that the father willfully violated the terms of the order of protection ( see Matter of Ferrusi v. James, 108 A.D.3d 1083, 1083, 967 N.Y.S.2d 857;Matter of Mary Ann YY. v. Edward YY., 100 A.D.3d 1253, 1254, 955 N.Y.S.2d 238). With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, the father's challenge to the commitment is moot inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms ( see Ferrusi, 108 A.D.3d at 1083, 967 N.Y.S.2d 857), and we therefore dismiss the appeal from that order.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ., concur.