Braham v. Braham, 1

• Decision Date: 09 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 2,1,2
• Citation: 693 N.Y.S.2d 239,264 A.D.2d 418
• Parties: In the Matter of Renita BRAHAM, respondent, v. Dave A. BRAHAM, appellant. (Proceeding) In the Matter of Dave A. Braham, appellant, v. Renita Braham, respondent. (Proceeding)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 239

693 N.Y.S.2d 239

In the Matter of Renita BRAHAM, respondent, v. Dave A. BRAHAM, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Dave A. Braham, appellant, v. Renita Braham, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 9, 1999.

Sari M. Friedman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellant in Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2.

Ostrow and Taub, L.L.P., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen R. Taub and A. James Temsamani of counsel), for respondent in Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORAMDUM BY THE COURT.

In family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Dave A. Braham, the husband, appeals from (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Koenig, J.), dated August 27, 1998, which, inter alia, directed him to vacate and stay away from the marital premises, and (2) an order of the same court, entered January 25, 1999, which awarded counsel fees to the wife's attorney.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the husband committed the family offense of harassment, thereby warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see, Family Ct. Act § 812; Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Dienes v. Dienes, 240 A.D.2d 576, 659 N.Y.S.2d 788; Matter of Smith v. Antonio, 239 A.D.2d 509, 658 N.Y.S.2d 962). The Family Court properly directed the husband to vacate and stay away from the marital premises since the record demonstrated that he conducted himself in an offensive and frightening manner toward the wife (see, Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568; Matter of Amy Cohen L. v. Howard N. L., 222 A.D.2d 677, 636 N.Y.S.2d 654; Merola v. Merola, 146 A.D.2d 611, 536 N.Y.S.2d 842).

The Family Court's determination to award counsel fees to the wife's attorney is supported by the record (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168; Matter of Zirkind v. Zirkind, 218 A.D.2d 745, 630 N.Y.S.2d 570).

The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.