Court Opinion

ID: 9912070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 17:06:47.020755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:57.048986
License: Public Domain

Matter of Inez A. v David A. (2023 NY Slip Op 06587)

Matter of Inez A. v David A.

2023 NY Slip Op 06587

Decided on December 21, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 21, 2023

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., González, Scarpulla, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ. 

 Docket No. 0-00638-21 Appeal No. 1286 Case No. 2022-04230 

[*1]In the Matter of Inez A., Petitioner-Respondent,
vDavid A., Respondent-Appellant.

Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Philip Katz, New York, for respondent.

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2022, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent David A. committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and directed him to stay away from petitioner Inez A. until September 14, 2024, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent's actions constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[3]; Family Ct Act § 832). Respondent's actions, which included sending threatening text messages and repeatedly calling the police to conduct wellness checks on petitioner despite his knowledge that the checks were unnecessary, served no legitimate purpose and established a course of conduct that was undertaken with the intent of seriously annoying or alarming petitioner (see Matter of Doris M. v Yarenis P., 161 AD3d 502, 502-503 [1st Dept 2018]). Furthermore, respondent's intent to commit the family offense of harassment in the second degree is fairly inferable from the surrounding circumstances (see Matter of Tawanda A.A. v Joseph D.A., 188 AD3d 401, 402 [1st Dept 2020]).
Family Court's credibility determinations are supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb them (see Matter of Judith L.C. v Lawrence Y., 179 AD3d 616, 616 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 911 [2020]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: December 21, 2023