Opinion
05-17-2017
In the Matter of Dominick V. SOMMELLA, Jr., respondent, v. Mark KIMBLE, appellant.
Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.
Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Christine P. Krahulik, J.), entered April 29, 2016, and (2) an order of protection of the same court entered February 9, 2016. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after a hearing, granted the family offense petition against the appellant, and directed him to comply with the conditions specified in the order of protection for a period of one year. The order of protection directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including February 9, 2017.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Initially, although the order of protection issued by the Family Court in connection with the family offense petition expired by its own terms on February 9, 2017, the appeal from the order of protection has not been rendered academic " ‘given the totality of the enduring legal and reputational consequences of the contested order of protection’ " (Matter of Pierre v. Dal, 142 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 37 N.Y.S.3d 317, quoting Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 673, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 ; see Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d 951, 951–952, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Matter of Niyazova v. Shimunov, 134 A.D.3d 1122, 1122, 23 N.Y.S.3d 277 ).
In this family offense proceeding, the Family Court conducted a fact-finding hearing on February 9, 2016, after which it issued the order of protection against the appellant. Thereafter, the court issued an order of fact-finding and disposition entered
April 29, 2016. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the testimony proffered at the fact-finding hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; see Matter of Molina v. Hart, 143 A.D.3d 723, 723, 38 N.Y.S.3d 440 ; Matter of Kiani v. Kiani, 134 A.D.3d 1036, 1037, 22 N.Y.S.3d 520 ).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection and granted the petition.