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
IN A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHERE THE VILLAGE CODE REQUIRES WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT BE GIVEN TO THE VILLAGE CLERK AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO LIABILITY, PROOF THAT WRITTEN NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO SOME OTHER VILLAGE OFFICER OR ENTITY WILL NOT DEFEAT THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary Evidence Is Considered Explained/Dismissal of Foreclosure Action Based on Lack of Standing Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits/Striking of a Foreclosure Complaint for Failure to Comply with a Discovery Order Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits
KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action
ALTHOUGH THE READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WAS TIMELY, IT WAS ILLUSORY BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN FILED; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).
Action for Fraud Cannot Be Based on Same Facts as Breach of Contract; Fraud Must Be Pled in Detail
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (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

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