Opinion
11423 Dkt. O-5247/18
04-30-2020
In re PHYLLIS H., Petitioner–Respondent, v. DIDIER C., Respondent–Appellant.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, upon a factual finding that respondent committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, granted a two-year order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), as the undisputed evidence establishes that the parties previously had an intimate relationship (see Matter of Kimberly O. v. Jahed M., 152 A.D.3d 441, 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 Sonia S. v. Pedro Antonio S., 139 A.D.3d 546, 547, 31 N.Y.S.3d 500 [1st Dept. 2016] ). That they were not romantically involved for a number of years preceding the filing of the petition is of no moment under the statute (see Matter of Willis v. Rhinehart, 76 A.D.3d 641, 643, 906 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2d Dept. 2010] ).
Although the court did not specify the precise criminal offense on which its finding that respondent committed a family offense was predicated, the record is sufficient to find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, with intent to harass petitioner, respondent committed the offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree by communicating to her a threat to cause her physical harm (see Penal Law § 240.30[1][a] ; see Matter of Shank v. Miller, 148 A.D.3d 1160, 50 N.Y.S.3d 525 [2d Dept. 2017] ).
We discern no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Fayona C. v. Christopher T., 103 A.D.3d 424, 425, 959 N.Y.S.2d 183 [1st Dept. 2013] ).