Opinion
88 Dkt. No. O-01236/21 Case No. 2022–03504
04-25-2023
In the Matter of ROSA G., Petitioner–Respondent, v. HIPOLITO D., Respondent–Appellant.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Philip Katz, New York, for respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Philip Katz, New York, for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Kern, Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt–Burke, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Keith E. Brown, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2022, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, granted a one-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly granted the petition for an order of protection against respondent, petitioner's former husband, because petitioner established the family offense of harassment in the second degree by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Court Act § 832 ; Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; Matter of Ghassem T. v. Kevin T., 170 A.D.3d 452, 453, 93 N.Y.S.3d 835 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Petitioner testified that she was afraid of respondent because they lived in the same apartment and he would threaten to kill her whenever they argued. She further testified that the most recent incident occurred in March 2021. Her testimony, which the court found credible, supports the finding that respondent engaged in a course of conduct which served no legitimate purpose, with intent of seriously annoying or alarming petitioner (see Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; Matter of Giovanni De M. v. Nick W., 200 A.D.3d 517, 517–518, 155 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Anthony B. v. Judy M., 167 A.D.3d 476, 87 N.Y.S.3d 883 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Sarah W. v. David W., 100 A.D.3d 463, 463, 953 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Respondent's intent to harass, annoy or alarm petitioner may be inferred from his threats (see Matter of Ramona A.A. v. Juan M.N., 126 A.D.3d 611, 3 N.Y.S.3d 599 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Family Court's credibility determinations in petitioner's favor and issuance of the one-year order of protection are supported by the record, and there is no basis to disturb them ( Matter of Lisa S. v. William V., 95 A.D.3d 666, 943 N.Y.S.2d 886 [1st Dept. 2012] ). The issuance of the order of protection was appropriate because it will likely be helpful in eradicating the root of the family disturbance and protect petitioner ( Matter of Doris M. v. Yarenis P., 161 A.D.3d 502, 503, 76 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2018] ).