You are here: / / VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE...
,

VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION; EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Family Court properly issued a final order of protection after respondent’s violation of a temporary order of protection. The court noted that the expiration of the order of protection did not render the appeal moot because the order “still imposes significant enduring consequences upon respondent…”. The dissent argued that a final order of protection cannot be issued unless a family offense has been committed:

Here, the Family Court found, on the record after a hearing, that respondent had willfully violated the temporary order of protection with his April 3, 2014 emails containing statements clearly intended to harass petitioner. As a result of this determination, the Family Court conducted a dispositional hearing on respondent’s violation of the temporary order of protection, and thereafter issued a new order of protection. The Family Court adhered to the prescribed procedure and did not exceed its jurisdiction by issuing this final order of protection. * * * … [W]e read Family Court Act § 846-a as prescribing the remedies available to the court when a respondent violates a temporary order of protection, which is what is at issue here. Matter of Lisa T. v King E.T., 2017 NY Slip Op 01487, 1st Dept 2-28-17

FAMILY LAW (VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)

You might also like
12 TO 18 INCH FALL SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1).
WHETHER PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGH ASBESTOS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER WAS THE SUBJECT OF COMPETING SIMULATION STUDIES; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.
Matter First Raised In a Reply Affirmation Is Not Properly Before an Appellate Court
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AS HE USED IT TO THROW TRASH INTO A DUMPSTER; THE ALLEGATION HE WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THAT DUMPSTER DID NOT RAISE A SOLE-PROXIMATE-CAUSE OR RECALCITRANT-EMPLOYEE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed

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

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN HARMED, MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS JUSTIFIED... COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN...