Opinion
8777
03-26-2019
In re JASNA MINA W., Petitioner–Respondent, v. WAHEED S., Respondent–Appellant.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.
Although the order of protection has expired, we address the merits of the appeal, since enduring consequences may flow from the adjudication that respondent has committed a family offense (see Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 671–672, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 [2015] ; Matter of Ramona A.A. v. Juan M.N., 126 A.D.3d 611, 3 N.Y.S.3d 599 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
A fair preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Family Ct Act §§ 812[1] ; 832, 842; Penal Law § 240.26[1] ). The Referee found petitioner's testimony to be credible, and there is no basis in the record to disturb this credibility determination (see Matter of Omobolanle O. v. Kevin J., 154 A.D.3d 442, 442, 60 N.Y.S.3d 822 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Chigusa Hosono D. v. Jason George D., 137 A.D.3d 631, 632, 28 N.Y.S.3d 49 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Petitioner's testimony described physical contact, including poking and pinching her in order to harass her into having sex, and also a course of conduct including persistent unwanted communications, name calling and threats, all of which were intended to and did cause her alarm or seriously annoy her, and which served no legitimate purpose ( Penal Law 240.26[1], [3] ; see Matter of Reiss v. Reiss, 221 A.D.2d 280, 280, 635 N.Y.S.2d 467 [1st Dept. 1995], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 801, 653 N.Y.S.2d 278, 675 N.E.2d 1231 [1996] ; see Matter of Putnam v. Jenney, 168 A.D.3d 1155, 90 N.Y.S.3d 678 [3d Dept. 2019] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.