Opinion
CAF 18–00963 1065
11-08-2019
In the Matter of Tracy A. RIGGINS, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Clinton J. DOWNING, Respondent–Appellant.
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. CHRISTINE F. REDFIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
CHRISTINE F. REDFIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of protection issued upon a finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.26(1). We affirm. Contrary to respondent's contention, petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Joan WW. v. Peter WW. , 173 A.D.3d 1380, 1381–1382, 104 N.Y.S.3d 358 [3d Dept. 2019] ; cf. Matter of Shephard v. Ray , 137 A.D.3d 1715, 1716, 28 N.Y.S.3d 211 [4th Dept. 2016] ). We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the order of protection.