You are here: / / An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court...

An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy

An “intimate relationship” (Family Court Act 812) must exist before one party to the relationship can petition Family Court seeking relief based upon family offenses. The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed the petition on the ground that one party identified as heterosexual and the other as homosexual, indicating there was no sexual relationship. Sexual intimacy is not required to establish an “intimate relationship” under the Family Court Act. On the other hand, cohabitation, standing alone, is not enough. The matter was sent back for a determination (re: the existence of an “intimate relationship”) applying he statutory factors:

… [W]e agree with petitioner that her implicit acknowledgment that she had not had a sexual relationship with respondent did not justify Family Court ruling, as a matter of law, that the two did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 812 (1) (e). Initially, “the governing rule of statutory construction is that courts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Turning to the relevant provision, Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction includes family offense petitions involving people who are or were previously engaged in an “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Factors relevant to determining the existence of 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” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…).

Considering these enumerated factors, the Legislature unambiguously established that the phrase “intimate relationship” is not limited to relationships that include sexual intimacy (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…). Matter of Arita v Goodman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

You might also like
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS PROPERLY REDUCED TO ZERO BECAUSE CLAIMANT’S PENSION EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WERE NEVER SERVED ON FATHER’S COUNSEL; THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER GRANTING THE OBJECTIONS IS VOID (THIRD DEPT). ​
Custody Grant to Grandmother, Rather than Father, Okay
ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).
FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.
FAMILY COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A RESETTLED ORDER WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING MOTHER’S SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Custody Should Not Have Been Awarded to Nonparent Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity...