Opinion
1319 Dkt. Nos. O-21605-18, O-21605-18/19A Case No. 2021–04397
12-28-2023
In the Matter of MATTHEW T., Petitioner–Respondent, v. MONIKA H., Respondent–Appellant.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant. Harold J. Pokel, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant.
Harold J. Pokel, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Webber, Friedman, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Appeal from decision, Family Court, New York County (Stephanie Schwartz, Referee), entered on or about October 3, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that the court has jurisdiction over this proceeding under Family Ct Act § 812(1)(e), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
Contrary to appellant's argument, the issue of lack of jurisdiction is not properly before this Court. Appellant did not appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate the final order of fact-finding and disposition, entered on her default, which was explicitly contemplated by the fact-finding decision from which she now purports to appeal. Accordingly, no appeal lies from this decision (see CPLR 5512[a] ).
Were we to deem the appeal properly taken from a duly entered appealable order, we would find that the court providently exercised jurisdiction over this proceeding under the Family Ct Act § 812(1)(e). On these facts, the relationship between petitioner and respondent qualifies as an intimate relationship. The parties were acquaintances for three years prior to having one overnight sexual encounter, after which, largely due to respondent's own actions, they were in constant communication and had several in-person encounters over the approximately one year preceding the filing of the petition. Indeed, the nature of the communications went beyond casual conversation, containing explicit references to sexual relations between the parties, as well as the prospects of a continued romantic relationship and family together, "leaving no doubt that [the] relationship was intimate" ( Matter of Lorin F. v. Jason D., 156 A.D.3d 548, 548–549, 65 N.Y.S.3d 700 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.