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
Height Differential Open and Obvious
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE THREE-DAY FACT-FINDING HEARING RELATED TO THE NEGLECT PETITION RE: SERENA, NOT THE NEWLY-FILED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PETITION RE: VINCENT; FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY CONSOLIDATED THE TWO PETITIONS FOR THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING DEPRIVING MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEADLY-FORCE-JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOWING AN UNSWORN WITNESS TO TESTIFY WAS ERROR; ALLOWING QUESTIONING ABOUT A WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR A STATEMENT NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE OR THE DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND (SECOND DEPT).
Absence of a Certificate of Conformity Not a Fatal Defect Re: a Motion for a Default Judgment/Court Should Not Have Raised, Sua Sponte, a Defense to the Motion on Behalf of Defendant Who Did Not Answer or Appear

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...