You are here: / / FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION...

FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Family Court had jurisdiction to issue a final order of protection, based upon the violation of a temporary order of protection, after the underlying family offense petition (which led to the temporary order of protection) had been dismissed:

​

Petitioner Lisa T. filed a family offense petition against respondent King E.T., who is her husband and the father of her child. Petitioner requested and received a temporary order of protection, ex parte, at her first appearance in Family Court. The temporary order of protection directed respondent to refrain from all communications with petitioner except those relating to visitation arrangements and emergencies regarding the child. It is undisputed that respondent was served with, and had knowledge of, this order. Throughout a series of subsequent court appearances concerning the family offense petition — at which respondent was present with one exception — the temporary order of protection was extended. While the family offense proceeding remained pending, petitioner filed two violation petitions, later consolidated into a single petition, alleging that respondent had contacted her in contravention of the temporary orders of protection.

Family Court held a combined hearing on the family offense and consolidated violation petitions. … Family Court dismissed the family offense petition, but sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final order of protection precluding respondent from, among other things, communicating with petitioner except as necessary to make arrangements for respondent’s visitation with the child.

Family Court Act §§ 846 and 846-a contain no language tying Family Court’s authority to impose specific penalties for the willful violation of a temporary order of protection to the court’s determination of whether or not the family offense petition, itself, should be sustained … . Significantly, there is no basis in the statutory text upon which we may draw any distinction between Family Court’s jurisdiction over violations of final orders of protection entered after a finding of a family offense, on the one hand, and violations of temporary orders of protection entered during the pendency of the family offense proceeding, on the other. Further, the statutory scheme makes clear that conduct constituting a violation of the order of protection need not necessarily constitute a separate family offense in order for the court to have jurisdiction over the violation. Indeed, section 846-a contains no such requirement. Matter of Lisa T. v King E.T., 2017 NY Slip Op 08800, CtApp 12-19-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/JURISDICTION  (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT MAINTAINED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION AFTER THE FAMILY OFFENSES, WHICH LED TO THE TEMPORARY VIOLATION OF PROTECTION, HAD BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP))

You might also like
THE COVID PROTOCOLS WERE IN EFFECT DURING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL; THE JURORS WERE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE MASKS WHEN THEY WERE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE; THE INABILTY TO SEE THE JURORS’ FULL FACES DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING JURY SELECTION AND DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).
Civil Commitment of Two Sex Offenders Reversed—In One Case the Proof the Offender Had “Serious Difficulty In Controlling” His Sexual Conduct Within the Meaning of Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law Was Legally Insufficient—In the Other Case, Proof the Offender Suffered from Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPC) Alone Did Not Meet the Definition of “Mental Abnormality” in Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law
Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).
In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board
“Alford” Plea in Related Criminal Proceeding Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

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

DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TAKE A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING IS A CRITICAL... NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY...