August 7, 2013
In the Matter of Tristin Banks, respondent,
Kwame Opoku, appellant. (Docket No. O-22070-11)
Karl E. Bonheim, Riverhead, N.Y., for appellant.
Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, N.Y., for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kwame Opoku appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated October 11, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and to refrain from harassing the petitioner.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the petitioner established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007), that the appellant, who, inter alia, made verbal threats to the petitioner in the hallway of the Family Court building and physically blocked the petitioner's car from exiting the parking lot of the Family Court, engaged in threatening behavior that recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm (see Penal Law § 240.20; People v Weaver, 16 N.Y.3d 123, 128-129; see generally Matter of Cassie v Cassie, _____ A.D.3d _____, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446 [2d Dept 2013]; cf. Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 A.D.3d 621; Matter of Bartley v Bartley, 48 A.D.3d 678, 679). Accordingly, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed acts which constituted the family offense of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 A.D.3d 1033), warranting the issuance of an order of protection.
SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.