You are here: / / FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY...
,

FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the long-term relationship (as sisters-in-law) qualified as an “intimate relationship” which supports a family offense proceeding:

For purposes of Family Court Act article 8, “members of the same family or household” is defined to include “persons related by consanguinity or affinity,” and “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that the parties had been in an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), so as to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the court. Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of “intimate relationship” a “casual acquaintance” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … , “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)” … . Factors to consider include “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 petitioner demonstrated that the parties had known each other for more than 30 years, that they had a close relationship as sisters-in-law for most of this period, during which they lived within one mile of one another, frequently had dinner together, engaged in social activities in each other’s homes, attended most holiday celebrations together, supported each other during times of devastating family illnesses, and assisted each other with their respective children … . Matter of Eno v Illovsky, 2023 NY Slip Op 01506, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: A family offense proceeding can be brought in Family Court only if there was an “intimate relationship” between petitioner and respondent. Here petitioner and respondent had been sisters-in-law for 30 years. lived a mile apart and had seen each other frequently. Their relationship was an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of the Family L

You might also like
AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE ALLOWING A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL ABNORMALITY NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SORA RISK LEVEL GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL.
NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.
UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM PROPERLY GRANTED, AN ATTORNEY FROM THE FIRM RETAINED BY PLAINTIFF WORKED ON PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY JOINED THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Have Granted Change-of-Custody Petition
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (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 IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE STATE SUFFICIENTLY... FAMILY COURT PROPERLY PROHIBITED FATHER FROM POSTING BLOGS DISPARAGING THE CHILD’S...