You are here: / / Evidence of an “Intimate Relationship” Sufficient to Give Family...

Evidence of an “Intimate Relationship” Sufficient to Give Family Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Family Offense Proceeding

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found that it had subject matter over a family offense proceeding based upon the expanded meaning of “members of the same family or household” to include  “intimate relationships.”  The petitioner did not live with the appellant at the time the family offense proceeding was brought:

The Family Court properly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Family Court Act § 812(1) gives the Family Court jurisdiction over family offenses committed “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household.” Persons in the same family are defined as persons related by consanguinity or affinity, persons legally married to one another, persons formerly married to each other even if they no longer live in the same household, and persons with a child in common, “regardless of whether such persons have been married or have lived together at any time” (Family Ct Act § 812[1][d]; see Family Ct Act § 812[1][a], [b], [c]). The petitioner and the appellant did not live in the same household, were not related by consanguinity or affinity, were never married to each other, and did not have any children in common.

In 2008, the legislature expanded the definition of “members of the same family or household” as set forth in Family Court Act § 812(1) to include:

“persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time. Factors the court may consider in determining whether a relationship is an intimate relationship’ include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship. Neither a casual acquaintance nor ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute an intimate relationship'” … . …

Generally, the “relationship should be direct, not one based upon a connection with a third party,” such as a child or a common boyfriend or girlfriend … . Here, however, an intimate relationship was established by the fact that the petitioner was living with the appellant’s children and their father, who had custody of them, and was acting as a stepmother to the appellant’s children … .

Frequency of contact is a significant factor in determining whether there is an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … , and it appears from this record that there is frequent contact between the appellant and the petitioner in order to arrange for the appellant’s visitation with her children. Permitting the petitioner to proceed with this matter in Family Court is consistent with the purpose of a family offense proceeding, which is to end family disruption and obtain protection … . Matter of Winston v Edwards-Clarke, 2015 NY Slip Op 02774, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO READBACK THE CROSS OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS PURSUANT TO THE JURY’S REQUEST REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN INNOCENT PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSSING DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AGAINST HER (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Equitable Mootness for Bankruptcy Ruling ​
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DESIGN DEFECT, FAILURE TO WARN AND IMPLIED WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A “HOVERBOARD” (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody/Access Matters... Under the Circumstances, the Filing of a Family Offense Petition Against the...