Opinion
10060
10-10-2019
In re NASHALLY M., Petitioner, v. JAMARAY C., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2016, which, upon a finding, after a hearing, that respondent committed acts constituting a family offense, issued a one-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The expiration of the order of protection does not moot the appeal since enduring consequences may flow from the adjudication that respondent has committed a family offense (see Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A. , 24 N.Y.3d 668, 671–672, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 [2015] ; Matter of Juana R. v. Chelsea R. , 154 A.D.3d 613, 62 N.Y.S.3d 785 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Although the Family Court failed to specify the particular family offense under Family Court Act § 812(a) that respondent committed, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see e.g. Matter of Kimberly O. v. Jahed M. , 152 A.D.3d 441, 442, 58 N.Y.S.3d 367 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 67 N.Y.S.3d 127, 89 N.E.3d 517 [2017] ; Matter of Christina KK. v. Kathleen LL. , 119 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 990 N.Y.S.2d 100 [3d Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Stewart v. Lassiter , 103 A.D.3d 734, 959 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2d Dept. 2013] ).
A preponderance of the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that respondent engaged in acts that would constitute the offenses of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 110.00/120.00[1] ), reckless endangerment in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.20 ), and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation ( Penal Law § 121.11 ). Respondent admitted on the record that he grabbed petitioner's neck and threatened to end her life, and petitioner confirmed that respondent choked her (see e.g. Matter of King v. King , 150 A.D.3d 1116, 1117, 56 N.Y.S.3d 182 [2d Dept. 2017] ).