You are here: / / Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter...

Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection

The Second Department determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Family Court Act 812 and could not, therefore, issue an order of protection to a person, Kirton, who was not a party to a family offense proceeding. Family Court’s jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding is limited to certain acts which occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). [M]embers of the same family or household include, among others, 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… ” [internal quotation marks omitted] Here the party to whom the order of protection was issued, Kirton, was not related in any way to, was not a member of the household of, and did not have an intimate relationship with the petitioner, Cambre (from whom Kirton was ordered to stay away):

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers conferred upon it by the New York Constitution or by statute … . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “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” … .

Here, Kirton and Cambre have no direct relationship … . The record … demonstrates that they met for the first time during the course of the court proceedings, and have no ongoing relationship … . Accordingly, the undisputed facts establish that there is no “intimate relationship” between the parties within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)… . Consequently, since the parties do not have an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (1)(e), the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Matter of Cambre v Kirton, 2015 NY Slip Op 06242, 2nd Dept 7-22-15 

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE BUS WAS BEHIND PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AND BOTH THE BUS AND THE SCOOTER APPARENTLY CHANGED LANES AT THE SAME TIME (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL GYM TEACHER WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Jury’s Failure to Award Damages for Future Pain and Suffering Did Not Warrant Setting Aside Verdict
THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (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

Prosecutor’s Reasons for Challenging an Hispanic Juror Were Pretextual—New... “Outside Influence Upon the Jury” Argument Rejected—“Weight...