Opinion
2013-08589 (Docket No. O-6024-12)
11-19-2014
In the Matter of Allison S. ROSENBLOOM, respondent, v. Mark S. ROSENBLOOM, appellant.
Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant. Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Bryce R. Levine of counsel), for respondent.
Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Bryce R. Levine of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Mark S. Rosenbloom appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated July 29, 2013, which, after a hearing, and upon, in effect, a finding that he had committed certain family offenses, directed him to refrain from committing certain proscribed actions against Allison S. Rosenbloom.
ORDERED that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 28, 2014, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Hohn v. Guirand, 97 A.D.3d 578, 947 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Matter of Scioscia v. Scioscia, 89 A.D.3d 739, 739–740, 931 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; Matter of Willis v. Rhinehart, 76 A.D.3d 641, 642, 906 N.Y.S.2d 335 ).
The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to grant the petition for an order of protection (see CPLR 4213[b] ; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025–1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059 ; Matter of Smith v. Falco–Boric, 87 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 929 N.Y.S.2d 870 ). However, remittal is not necessary, because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d at 1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059 ; Matter of Smith v. Falco–Boric, 87 A.D.3d at 1147, 929 N.Y.S.2d 870 ). The record does not support the Family Court's finding, in effect, that the appellant committed a family offense warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct. Act § 812 ; Matter of Smith v. Falco–Boric, 87 A.D.3d at 1147, 929 N.Y.S.2d 870 ). In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contention.