From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Brian G. Smith v. Falco–boric

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-09-27

In the Matter of Brian G. SMITH, respondent,v.Donna L. FALCO–BORIC, appellant.


Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Donna L. Falco–Boric appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated August 12, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing and upon, in effect, a finding that she had committed certain family offenses, directed her, inter alia, to stay 500 feet away from the petitioner, Brian G. Smith, until and including August 12, 2011.

ORDERED that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on August 12, 2011, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of “the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense” ( Matter of Willis v. Rhinehart, 76 A.D.3d 641, 642, 906 N.Y.S.2d 335; see

Matter of Wallace v. Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711; Matter of Hogan v. Hogan, 271 A.D.2d 533, 705 N.Y.S.2d 678).

The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to grant the petition for an order of protection ( see CPLR 4213[b]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025–1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059; Matter of Destiny H. [ Valerie B.], 83 A.D.3d 939, 920 N.Y.S.2d 716). However, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence ( see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d at 1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059; Matter of Destiny H. [ Valerie B.], 83 A.D.3d 939, 920 N.Y.S.2d 716). The record does not support the Family Court's finding, in effect, that the appellant committed a family offense warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( see Family Ct. Act. § 812).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contentions.

ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Brian G. Smith v. Falco–boric

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In the Matter of Brian G. Smith v. Falco–boric

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Brian G. SMITH, respondent,v.Donna L. FALCO–BORIC…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 27, 2011

Citations

87 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
929 N.Y.S.2d 870
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6847

Citing Cases

Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 28, 2014, the appeal has not been rendered…

Sperling v. Sperling

The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to…