You are here: / / HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP...

HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP PROVIDED FAMILY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER PETITION SEEKING ORDER OF PROTECTION.

The Second Department determined Family Court should have held a hearing to determine whether the court had jurisdiction over a petition for an order of protection based upon an “intimate relationship” between the subject of the proposed order of protection and the petitioner:

Although the statute expressly excludes a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” from the definition of “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812[1][e]), “the legislature left it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), based upon consideration of factors such as 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'” … . “[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … .

Here, in light of the parties’ conflicting allegations as to whether they had an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court, prior to determining the respondent’s motion, in effect, to dismiss, should have conducted a hearing on that issue … . Matter of Singh v DiFrancisco, 2016 NY Slip Op 05504, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

FAMILY LAW (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP PROVIDED FAMILY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER PETITION SEEKING ORDER OF PROTECTION)/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (FAMILY LAW, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP PROVIDED FAMILY COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER PETITION SEEKING ORDER OF PROTECTION)

You might also like
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO ADD AN APPARENTLY MISNAMED PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BROKEN CURB WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Embankment Near a Stream Was an “Open and Obvious” Dangerous Condition at 3 a.m.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROPERLY DENIED, BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ALLOWED THE LOT TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS BUT NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY DEDICATED THE LOT AS PARKLAND, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AND THE CITY CAN DEVELOP THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and As Against the Weight of the Evidence Described

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

NON-RELATIVE ALLEGED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING A HEARING ON HER... SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION...