Opinion
595 CAF 14-00012
05-01-2015
In the Matter of April A. BURLEY, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Bernard D. BURLEY, Respondent–Appellant.
Charles T. Noce, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James A. Hobbs of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Margaret M. Reston, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
Charles T. Noce, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James A. Hobbs of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Margaret M. Reston, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, respondent appeals from an order of protection issued upon a finding that he willfully violated a prior order of protection issued in favor of petitioner directing him, inter alia, to refrain from forcible touching. Contrary to respondent's contention, petitioner met her burden of establishing that he was aware of the terms of that prior order of protection (cf. Matter of Er–Mei Y., 29 A.D.3d 1013, 1016, 816 N.Y.S.2d 539 ), and that he willfully violated it (see Matter of Ferrusi v. James, 119 A.D.3d 1379, 1380, 988 N.Y.S.2d 514 ). Respondent failed to preserve for our review his further contention that Family Court improperly considered testimony regarding an incident not alleged in the petition (see generally Matter of Haley M.T., 96 A.D.3d 1549, 1550, 947 N.Y.S.2d 257 ), and the record does not support that contention in any event (see Matter of Chilbert v. Soler, 77 A.D.3d 1405, 1406, 907 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 701, 2011 WL 67515 ). Finally, we reject respondent's contention that the court abused its discretion in issuing a stay away order of protection (see Matter of Beck v. Butler, 87 A.D.3d 1410, 1411, 930 N.Y.S.2d 515, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 801, 2011 WL 6223048 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.