You are here: / / Criteria for Imposing Order of Protection for Longer than Two Years Based...
,

Criteria for Imposing Order of Protection for Longer than Two Years Based on Family Offense Involving Aggravating Circumstance (Use of Weapon Here) Explained

The Second Department, in a family offense proceeding involving the use of a weapon, explained the criteria for issuing an order of protection for a period longer than two years:

To issue an order of protection with a duration exceeding two years on the ground of aggravating circumstances, the Family Court must set forth “on the record and upon the order of protection” a finding of such aggravating circumstances as defined in Family Court Act § 827(a)(vii) (Family Ct Act § 842). The statutory definition of “aggravating circumstances” includes five distinct situations, set forth in the disjunctive: (1) “physical injury or serious physical injury to the petitioner caused by the respondent,” (2) “the use of a dangerous instrument against the petitioner by the respondent,” (3) “a history of repeated violations of prior orders of protection by the respondent,” (4) “prior convictions for crimes against the petitioner by the respondent,” “or” (5) “the exposure of any family or household member to physical injury by the respondent and like incidents, behaviors and occurrences which to the court constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner’s family or household” (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]…),

A finding of aggravating circumstances under the fifth situation set forth in Family Ct Act § 827(a)(vii) must be supported by a finding of “an immediate and ongoing danger to the petitioner, or any member of the petitioner’s family or household” (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]; …). To the extent that certain language in Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding (101 AD3d at 1118) might suggest that the “immediate and ongoing danger” requirement pertains to the other four situations enumerated in Family Court Act § 827(a)(vii) as well, it is not to be construed as such. Where the aggravating circumstances involve the use of a dangerous instrument (cf. Penal Law § 10.00[13]…), the “immediate and ongoing danger” requirement does not apply (Family Ct Act § 827[a][vii]… .  Matter of Kondor v Kondor, 2013 NY slip Op 05747, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

 

You might also like
THE DAMAGES AMOUNT ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT IN THE INQUEST WAS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEPRESSED DRAIN NEAR CONDOMINIUM ENTRANCE WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.
Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Construction of Shopping Mall/No Showing of Unique Environmental Injury
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (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

Wife’s Concealment of Terminal Cancer Did Not Warrant Rescission of Divorce... Plaintiff Can Not Recover Under Her Own Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured...