You are here: / / FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION...

FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Family Court had jurisdiction to issue a final order of protection, based upon the violation of a temporary order of protection, after the underlying family offense petition (which led to the temporary order of protection) had been dismissed:

​

Petitioner Lisa T. filed a family offense petition against respondent King E.T., who is her husband and the father of her child. Petitioner requested and received a temporary order of protection, ex parte, at her first appearance in Family Court. The temporary order of protection directed respondent to refrain from all communications with petitioner except those relating to visitation arrangements and emergencies regarding the child. It is undisputed that respondent was served with, and had knowledge of, this order. Throughout a series of subsequent court appearances concerning the family offense petition — at which respondent was present with one exception — the temporary order of protection was extended. While the family offense proceeding remained pending, petitioner filed two violation petitions, later consolidated into a single petition, alleging that respondent had contacted her in contravention of the temporary orders of protection.

Family Court held a combined hearing on the family offense and consolidated violation petitions. … Family Court dismissed the family offense petition, but sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final order of protection precluding respondent from, among other things, communicating with petitioner except as necessary to make arrangements for respondent’s visitation with the child.

Family Court Act §§ 846 and 846-a contain no language tying Family Court’s authority to impose specific penalties for the willful violation of a temporary order of protection to the court’s determination of whether or not the family offense petition, itself, should be sustained … . Significantly, there is no basis in the statutory text upon which we may draw any distinction between Family Court’s jurisdiction over violations of final orders of protection entered after a finding of a family offense, on the one hand, and violations of temporary orders of protection entered during the pendency of the family offense proceeding, on the other. Further, the statutory scheme makes clear that conduct constituting a violation of the order of protection need not necessarily constitute a separate family offense in order for the court to have jurisdiction over the violation. Indeed, section 846-a contains no such requirement. Matter of Lisa T. v King E.T., 2017 NY Slip Op 08800, CtApp 12-19-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/JURISDICTION  (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))

You might also like
CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).
WHEN A DEFENDANT MUST BE RELEASED BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH A BAIL-ELIGIBLE OFFENSE, A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION MUST BE CONDUCTED AS AN OUT-PATIENT OR IN A HOSPITAL; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE ORDERED TO JAIL PENDING THE EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (CT APP). ​
Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan
HERE A WITNESS TO THE SHOOTING IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; UNDER THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED; THE COURT OFFERED GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE OR AVOID THE SITUATION (CT APP).
STATE SENATE CANDIDATE, WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC IN 2014, DID NOT MEET NEW YORK’S FIVE-YEAR CONTINUOUS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, THIRD DEPT REVERSED.
REVOCATION OF RACEHORSE TRAINER’S LICENSE BY THE NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD WAS MET (CT APP).
Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPURCHASE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO REFILE THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (CT APP).

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

DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL... NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY...