Case ID: ad3d_129/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Anita R. Ramdhanie, Respondent, v Dhansham Ramdhanie, Appellant.
    [9 NYS3d 583]
   Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Anne-Marie Jolly, J.), dated June 6, 2014. The order of protection, upon a finding that Dhansham Ramdhanie committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to refrain from communicating in any way with the petitioner until and including June 6, 2016.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711 [2010]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court’s determination, after a hearing, that he committed acts constituting the family offenses of disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 120.20, 240.20, 240.26; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; People v Valerio, 60 NY2d 669 [1983]; People v Wood, 59 NY2d 811 [1983]; Matter of Joy T., 106 AD3d 456 [2013]). Thus, the issuance of the order of protection appealed from was warranted.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.