From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Latava P. v. Charles W.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 11, 2019
171 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

8952

04-11-2019

In re LATAVA P., Petitioner–Appellant, v. CHARLES W., Respondent–Respondent.

Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.


Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Aija Tingling, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2017, which granted respondent's motion to dismiss the family offense petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the petition liberally and giving it the benefit of every favorable inference (see Matter of Christine P. v. Machiste Q., 124 A.D.3d 531, 532, 2 N.Y.S.3d 102 [1st Dept. 2015] ), we find that the allegations in the petition concerning incidents that occurred in January 2017 were insufficient to allege the family offense of harassment in the second degree because they do not involve a "course of conduct" or repeated acts that would "seriously annoy" the petitioner and serve no legitimate purpose ( Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; see McGuffog v. Ginsberg, 266 A.D.2d 136, 699 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 1999] ). There is no allegation of damage to physical property to support a finding of criminal mischief in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 145.00[1] ), and the allegations were too vague to allege stalking in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 120.45[1] ; Matter of Kimberly O. v. Jahed M., 152 A.D.3d 441, 58 N.Y.S.3d 367 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 2017 WL 4654053 [2017] ).

The allegations concerning an incident that occurred four years earlier also were properly dismissed because, although a family offense petition cannot be dismissed "solely on the basis that the acts or events alleged are not relatively contemporaneous with the date of the petition" ( Family Court Act § 812[1] ), the petition failed to sufficiently plead conduct constituting a pattern of imminent and ongoing danger to the mother (see Matter of Opray v. Fitzharris, 84 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 924 N.Y.S.2d 421 [2d Dept. 2011] ; cf. Matter of Monwara G. v. Abdul G., 153 A.D.3d 1174, 60 N.Y.S.3d 166 [1st Dept. 2017] ).


Summaries of

Latava P. v. Charles W.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 11, 2019
171 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Latava P. v. Charles W.

Case Details

Full title:In re Latava P., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles W.…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 2019

Citations

171 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2804
95 N.Y.S.3d 813

Citing Cases

Z.B. v. L.S.

Finally, under Family Court Act §812 (1), a petition cannot be dismissed "solely on the basis that the acts…

J.M. v. M.F.

Furthermore, even if the parties had the requisite relationship to establish subject matter jurisdiction…