You are here: / / WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE...
, ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have held a hearing before ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding. The proceeding was against respondent, the paramour of petitioner’s former husband. Whether Family Court has jurisdiction depends on whether the respondent is or has been in an “intimate relationship” with petitioner’s child:

“Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of ‘intimate relationship’ a ‘casual acquaintance’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … , “the [L]egislature 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)” … . The factors that a court may consider while making such a determination are “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 there was an “intimate relationship” between the child and the respondent within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court, prior to determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, should have conducted a hearing on that issue … . Matter of De Phillips v Perez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Family Court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense petition against a person who is not a family member but has an “intimate relationship” with the child. Here Family Court should not have found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction without first holding a hearing to determine whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the respondent and petitioner’s child.​

 

You might also like
STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions
DEFENDANTS’ PROOF DEMONSTRATED THE SNOW STORM WAS OVER 12 HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Criteria for an Exception to the “Best Evidence Rule” for Admission of an Agreement, the Terms of Which Were In Dispute, Were Not Met—New Trial Ordered
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS INSPECTED OR TREATED ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE NATURE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WAS PROBATIVE OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS’ VAN RAN OVER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANTS ALLEGED INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL OFF HER BICYCLE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (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

GRANDFATHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” AFFORDING... DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW...