Opinion
2022-02158, 2022-02160 Docket Nos. O-3452-22, O-3451-22
07-27-2022
In the Matter of Cheryl D. UZAMERE, appellant, v. Austin I. IDEHEN, etc., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Cheryl D. Uzamere, appellant, v. Ehigie Uzamere, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
Cheryl D. Uzamere, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Cheryl D. Uzamere, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Ben Darvil, Jr., J.), both dated March 7, 2022. The first order, without a hearing, dismissed the petition asserted against Ehigie Uzamere for failure to state a cause of action. The second order, without a hearing, dismissed the petition asserted against Austin I. Idehen on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In March 2022, the petitioner commenced these related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against her husband, Ehigie Uzamere (hereinafter Uzamere), and against Uzamere's attorney, Austin I. Idehen. In an order dated March 7, 2022, the Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the petition asserted against Uzamere for failure to state a cause of action. In a separate order, also dated March 7, 2022, the Family Court, without a hearing, dismissed the petition asserted against Idehen for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The petitioner appeals.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the allegations set forth in the petition asserted against Uzamere were insufficient to allege conduct that would constitute the offenses of coercion in the second or third degrees or aggravated harassment in the second degree (cf. Penal Law §§ 135.60[1], [2], [3] ; 135.61; 240.30[1]; Matter of Boulerice v. Heaney, 45 A.D.3d 1217, 846 N.Y.S.2d 734 ; People v. Graves, 12 Misc.3d 516, 820 N.Y.S.2d 476 [Crim. Ct., New York County] ). Thus, the Family Court properly dismissed that petition for failure to state a cause of action. Furthermore, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition asserted against Idehen for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and thus, it "cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute" ( Matter of Johna M.S. v. Russell E.S., 10 N.Y.3d 364, 366, 859, 859 N.Y.S.2d 594, 889 N.E.2d 471 ; see N.Y. Const, art VI, § 13 ; Family Ct Act § 115 ). Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain proscribed criminal acts that occur "between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household." The definition of "members of the same family or household" includes "persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship." Expressly excluded from the definition of "intimate relationship" are "casual acquaintance[s]" and "ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts" ( Family Ct Act § 812[1][e] ).
Here, the petitioner concedes that Idehen is not related to her by consanguinity and she did not allege any interactions with Idehen other than when Idehen functioned as Uzamere's counsel. Thus, the court properly dismissed the petition asserted against Idehen for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see Family Ct Act § 812[1][e] ; Matter of Kane v. Tung, 194 A.D.3d 718, 143 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; Matter of Seye v. Lamar, 72 A.D.3d 975, 900 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; Matter of Rollerson v. New, 28 Misc.3d 663, 901 N.Y.S.2d 515 [Fam. Ct., Kings County] ; cf. Matter of Jose M. v. Angel V., 99 A.D.3d 243, 246–247, 951 N.Y.S.2d 195 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.