Opinion
2012-06-27
In the Matter of Jan BAGINSKI, respondent, v. Mieczystaw ROSTKOWSKI, appellant.
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant. Jonathan Edward Kirchner, P.C., Commack, N.Y., for respondent.
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant.Jonathan Edward Kirchner, P.C., Commack, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Mieczystaw Rostkowski appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated September 26, 2011, which, upon a finding, made after a hearing, that he had committed a family offense, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including September 12, 2013.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the Family Court failed to specify the particular family offense under Family Court Act § 812(1) that the appellant committed, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence ( see Matter of Drury v. Drury, 90 A.D.3d 754, 754, 934 N.Y.S.2d 337). The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of menacing in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and harassment in the second degree ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 812[1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20, 240.26[1]; Matter of Melissa K. v. Brian K., 72 A.D.3d 1129, 898 N.Y.S.2d 318;Matter of Sblendorio v. D'Agostino, 60 A.D.3d 773, 877 N.Y.S.2d 92;Matter of Miriam M. v. Warren M., 51 A.D.3d 581, 859 N.Y.S.2d 66;Matter of Sinclair v. Batista–Mall, 50 A.D.3d 1044, 854 N.Y.S.2d 906).