You are here: / / INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED; EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID...
,

INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED; EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined the evidence did not support an intent to harass and the family offense petition was dismissed. The court noted the fact that the related protective order had expired did not render the appeal moot because the order still imposes significant enduring consequences that can be relieved by an appellate decision:

The Referee found that respondent committed a family offense, i.e., harassment in the second degree, based upon the Referee's conclusion that respondent told petitioner during a lengthy telephone call that he did not know what he would do if he saw her with another man, sent her two or three text messages stating that he hoped to reconcile with her, and then left on petitioner's car several mementos that petitioner had given him along with the message that he would “never forget [her], bye.” Notwithstanding the Referee's implicit finding that petitioner was upset by the communications, “her reaction is immaterial in establishing [respondent]'s intent” … . Furthermore, although “[t]he requisite intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances” … , the circumstances here failed to establish that respondent acted with the requisite intent. Even crediting the Referee's credibility determinations that respondent engaged in the conduct described above, we conclude that such conduct was comprised of relatively innocuous acts that were insufficient to establish that respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to harass, alarm or annoy petitioner … . Matter of Shephard v Ray, 2016 NY Slip Op 02239, 4th Dept 3-25-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSE, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/FAMILY LAW (FAMILY OFFENSE, EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL)/FAMILY OFFENSE (HARASSMENT, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/HARASSMENT (FAMILY OFFENSE, INTENT TO HARASS NOT DEMONSTRATED)/APPEALS (FAMILY OFFENSE, EXPIRATION OF ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT MOOT APPEAL)

You might also like
THE STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL SEXUAL URGES, AS OPPOSED HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL URGES; THEREFORE CONFINEMENT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SORA COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND DURING AN EXTENDED TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPERVISED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR WHICH MAY WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS WERE ENCOMPASSED BY COUNTS 2 AND 3; THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THOSE COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
Pecuniary Loss Defined
Police Officer Involved In Accident Acted Appropriately In an Emergency Operation—Defendants Not Liable As a Matter of Law
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH 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

DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A LINCOLN HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISC... INADEQUATE INQUIRY PRECEDING FATHER’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED...