From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mazzola v. Mazzola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2001
280 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued January 25, 2001

February 26, 2001.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated December 2, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the petition for an order of protection.

Robert A. Ross, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant.

Tabat, Cohen, Blum Kramer, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Amel R. Massa of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GOLDSTEIN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that so much of the order as found that the appellant committed a family offense is affirmed, and the appeal is otherwise dismissed as academic, with costs.

The appeal from the decretal provisions of the order of protection directing the appellant to refrain from engaging in certain conduct has been rendered academic by the passing of the time limit contained therein (see, Matter of Kennedy v. Tsombanis, ___ A.D.2d ___; ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 13, 2000]; Matter of Nagengast v. Kostas, 276 A.D.2d 489). The expiration of the order of protection also renders academic the appellant's challenge to the dispositional proceedings (see, Matter of Kennedy v. Tsombanis, supra; Matter of Nagengast v. Kostas, supra). However, "in light of enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense", the appeal from so much of the order as made that adjudication is not academic (Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767).

The appellant's claim that he did not commit any of the offenses enumerated in Family Court Act § 812 is without merit. The appellant committed the family offense of menacing in the third degree (see, Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law § 120.15; Matter of Hendrick v. DiRusso, 264 A.D.2d 523). Accordingly, the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed a family offense should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Savine v. Savine-Rivas, 274 A.D.2d 585; Matter of Hogan v. Hogan, 271 A.D.2d 533; Matter of Braham v. Braham, 264 A.D.2d 418).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Mazzola v. Mazzola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2001
280 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Mazzola v. Mazzola

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF KARAN MAZZOLA, RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH A. MAZZOLA, APPELLANT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 26, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 838

Citing Cases

Sinclair v. Othoniel

We agree with the husband that a fair preponderance of the credible evidence did not support the Family…

Matter of Penn v. Johnson

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or…