New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department
March 5, 2013
IN RE VICTOR S., ETC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, --
KAREEM J.S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about January 23, 2012, which after a hearing, determined that appellant had committed acts that constituted aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30), and granted petitioner a one-year order of protection directing appellant to, inter alia, stay away from and cease communication with him and his daughter, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Matter of Victor S. v Kareem J.S.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on March 5, 2013 Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick, Richter, Gische, JJ.
Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Diallo v Diallo, 68 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 854 ).
Were we to reach the merits, we would find that a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832), supports the referee's finding that appellant committed acts constituting the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.30), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812). Indeed, "making a telephone call will constitute aggravated harassment in the second degree when it is made with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person and is made either in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm or with no purpose of legitimate communication" (Matter of Wendy Q. v Jason Q., 94 AD3d 1371, 1373 [3d Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to appellant' contention, his intent to alarm or annoy petitioner was inferable from his statements about petitioner's daughter, because they constituted a threat that specifically referred to placing the safety of the child in jeopardy (see People v Wilson, 59 AD3d 153, 154 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 895 ).
Appellant set forth no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 5, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.