Opinion
11710 Dkt. O-20816-17
06-25-2020
In re VERONICA C., Petitioner-Respondent, v. ARIANN D., Respondent-Appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant. D. Philip Schiff, New York, for respondent.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
D. Philip Schiff, New York, for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Patria Frias–Colon, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2019, in petitioner's favor, upon a finding that respondent committed certain family offenses, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the order vacated, and the proceeding dismissed.
The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding brought by the foster mother of respondent's biological children. Petitioner failed to establish that she and respondent, who are not members of the same family or household, are or have been in an intimate relationship (see Family Court Act § 812[1][e] ; Matter of Tyrone T. v. Katherine M., 78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2010] ; compare Matter of Winston v. Edwards–Clarke, 127 A.D.3d 771, 773, 6 N.Y.S.3d 566 [2d Dept. 2015] [intimate relationship existed where the petitioner was living with the respondent's children and their father, who had custody of them, was acting as a stepmother to the children, had frequent contact with respondent, and helped arrange respondent's visitation with the children]; Matter of Kristina L. v. Elizabeth M., 156 A.D.3d 1162, 1164, 67 N.Y.S.3d 690 [3d Dept. 2017] [intimate relationship existed based on parties' preexisting friendship and frequent interactions while living together, on both a personal level and with respect to the respondent's child], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 1415247 [2018] ). Petitioner testified that she did not even know respondent's first name. It appears from the record that petitioner's contact with respondent has been limited to scheduling visitation with the children at the agency and, perhaps, interacting with respondent when she went to petitioner's home to pick up the children for visits.