You are here: / / THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE...
, ,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family-offense petition should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Department determined the respondent met the “intimate relationship” criteria which provided Family Court with subject matter jurisdiction:

“[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” … . Although Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) expressly excludes a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” from the definition of “intimate relationship,” “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 record demonstrated that the petitioner knew the respondent for more than 20 years, and the respondent and the petitioner’s sister held themselves out as husband and wife. During that period of time, the petitioner and the respondent engaged in general social activities at each other’s homes, attended holiday and birthday celebrations together, and traveled together. The petitioner’s sister and the respondent had a daughter together who identified the petitioner as her aunt. The petitioner resided in one of the units of a three-family home. The petitioner’s sister, the respondent, and their daughter, who was approximately 18 years old at the time of the hearing, resided in one of the other units of that three-family home. The home was owned by the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner’s sister. Under the circumstances, the Family Court should have denied the respondent’s application to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]). Matter of Charter v Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 04167, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: This case demonstrates that an “intimate relationship” which gives Family Court subject matter jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding need not be a sexual relationship.

 

You might also like
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NOT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, CONTROLS THE TERMINATION OF AN INJURED FIREFIGHTER ABSENT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR DUE TO THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Signed Consent Form Precluded Cause of Action for Assault and Battery (Re: a Hysterectomy)—Defendant Demonstrated the Allegation Plaintiff Did Not Consent to the Hysterectomy Was “Not a Fact At All”–Question of Fact Raised Re: the “Lack of Informed Consent” Cause of Action
IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (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

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SERVED ONLY FIVE DAYS LATE WHICH WAS DEEMED TIMELY NOTICE... MOTHER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE...