Case ID: ad3d_125/html/0568-01.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 Danta P.C., Respondent, v Tyrell C., Appellant.
    [1 NYS3d 816]—
   Order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about August 23, 2013, against respondent, upon a fact-finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the credible hearing evidence supports the referee’s finding that respondent committed acts that would constitute harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of a two-year order of protection against him (see Family Ct Act §§ 832, 842; Penal Law § 240.26 [1], [3]). Petitioner testified that in July and August of 2011 respondent was verbally abusive to her, among other things, threatening to kill her (see Matter of Sarah W. v David W., 100 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2012]). She also testified that on one occasion, at the children’s basketball game, he announced that he was carrying a gun and threatened to harm her, and then, after the game, in the presence of the children, he threatened to “smack” her and said that he could have someone follow and kill her (see Matter of Janice M. v Terrance J., 96 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2012]). We see no basis for disturbing the referee’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida R, 61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

The Referee properly issued the order of protection in favor of the children as well as petitioner, because some of respondent’s threatening statements to petitioner were made in the children’s presence (see Matter of Angela C. v Harris K, 102 AD3d 588, 590 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.