Opinion
7714
11-27-2018
In re REINA C., Petitioner–Appellant, v. YANKEL F., Respondent–Respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant. Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Tom, Webber, Kahn, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Christopher W. Coffey, Referee), entered on or about January 18, 2018, which dismissed, with prejudice, the petition for an order of protection against respondent due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is undisputed that petitioner and respondent are not members of the same family or household, and the Referee properly concluded that an intimate relationship did not exist under any of the other provisions of the statute (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1] ; Matter of Tyrone T. v. Katherine M., 78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2010] ; compare Matter of Winston v. Edwards–Clarke, 127 A.D.3d 771, 6 N.Y.S.3d 566 [2d Dept. 2015] ). Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.