From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marino v. Marino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 16, 2013
110 A.D.3d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-10-16

In the Matter of Vincent Alfred MARINO, v. Debra MARINO, respondent.


Matthew M. Lupoli, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated October 1, 2012, which, without a hearing, dismissed his petition for failure to state a cause of action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petitioner's family offense petition, without a hearing, for failure to state a cause of action. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the factual allegations set forth in his petition were insufficient to allege conduct that would constitute the offense of harassment in the second degree ( see Family Ct. Act §§ 812[1], 821[1][a]; Penal Law § 240.26[3]; Matter of Dowgiallo v. Williams, 99 A.D.3d 708, 709, 951 N.Y.S.2d 404;Matter of Price v. Jenkins, 92 A.D.3d 787, 938 N.Y.S.2d 452;Matter of Davis v. Venditto, 45 A.D.3d 837, 838, 846 N.Y.S.2d 365;Matter of Jones v. Roper, 187 A.D.2d 593, 591 N.Y.S.2d 336;cf. Matter of Little v. Renz, 90 A.D.3d 757, 934 N.Y.S.2d 331;Matter of McFadden v. McFadden, 83 A.D.3d 943, 920 N.Y.S.2d 732).

ENG, P.J., BALKIN, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marino v. Marino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 16, 2013
110 A.D.3d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Marino v. Marino

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Vincent Alfred MARINO, v. Debra MARINO, respondent.

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

Date published: Oct 16, 2013

Citations

110 A.D.3d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6687
972 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

Waldron v. Heyward

ition fails to set forth factual allegations which, if proven, would establish that the respondent has…

Pynn v. Pynn

Thus, affirmance of that part of the order concerning the September 2022 petition is warranted based on…