Summary
holding there was no harassment based on only isolated incidents of threats in the course of an ongoing dispute
Summary of this case from Abusikin v. City of New YorkOpinion
2013-05-28
In re RAFAEL F., Petitioner–Appellant, v. PEDRO PABLO N., Respondent–Respondent. In re Rafael F., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Elizabeth V., Respondent–Respondent.
Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing in proceedings brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petitions for orders of protection against respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that respondents' actions did not rise to the family offense of harassment in the second degree is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Everett C. v. Oneida P., 61 A.D.3d 489, 878 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept. 2009];Penal Law § 240.26[1], [3] ). There exists no basis to disturb the court's finding that petitioner's testimony established only isolated incidences of threats made by his niece and nephew in the course of an ongoing dispute over property, and did not amount to genuine threats ( see People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47, 53–54, 550 N.Y.S.2d 595, 549 N.E.2d 1166 [1989]; Matter of Ebony J. v. Clarence D., 46 A.D.3d 309, 847 N.Y.S.2d 523 [1st Dept. 2007] ).