Frimer v. Frimer
| Decision Date | 19 October 2016 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rafael FRIMER, respondent, v. Antonina FRIMER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jill M. Zuccardy, New York, NY, for appellant.
Litvak Law Firm, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Igor Litvak of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by Antonina Frimer from an order of protection of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), dated July 16, 2015. The order of protection, upon a finding that the appellant committed family offenses, made after a hearing, directed the appellant, among other things, to stay away from the petitioner until and including July 17, 2017.
ORDERED that upon the appeal from the order of protection, so much of the finding as found that the appellant committed the family offenses of attempted assault and menacing are vacated; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In February 2014, the petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against his wife, Antonina Frimer (hereinafter the appellant), in the Family Court, Kings County, pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. Upon transfer to the IDV Part of Supreme Court, Kings County, and after a hearing, the Supreme Court found on the record that the appellant committed the family offenses of attempted assault, menacing, and harassment, and issued an order of protection directing the appellant to stay away from the petitioner until and including July 17, 2017, and to observe other stated conditions.
“ ‘In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a “fair preponderance of the evidence,” that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition’ ” (Matter of Bah v. Bah, 112 A.D.3d 921, 921–922, 978 N.Y.S.2d 301
, quoting Matter of
Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537, quoting Family Ct. Act § 832 ; see Matter of
Masciello v. Masciello, 130 A.D.3d 626, 626, 12 N.Y.S.3d 299 ; Matter of
Bessent v. Bessent, 113 A.D.3d 847, 979 N.Y.S.2d 543 ; Matter of
Knibbs v. Zeman, 86 A.D.3d 568, 926 N.Y.S.2d 835 ). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of
Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 737, 738, 31 N.Y.S.3d 149 ; see Matter of
Masciello v. Masciello, 130 A.D.3d at 626, 12 N.Y.S.3d 299 ; Matter of
Bessent v. Bessent, 113 A.D.3d at 847, 979 N.Y.S.2d 543 ; Matter of
Williams v. Maise, 85 A.D.3d 933, 925 N.Y.S.2d 839 ).
Here, according due deference to the credibility determinations of the Supreme Court, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1]
; Penal Law § 240.26[3] ). The evidence demonstrated that the appellant, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the petitioner, engaged in a course of conduct, consisting of threatening to call the police and make false accusations against the petitioner, cursing at the petitioner, shoving the petitioner, and throwing his personal belongings, which alarmed or seriously annoyed the petitioner and served no legitimate purpose (see Matter of
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 138 A.D.3d 742, 743, 27 N.Y.S.3d 884 ; Matter of
Xin Li v. Ramos, 125 A.D.3d 681, 682, 3 N.Y.S.3d 86 ; Matter of
Pochat v. Pochat, 125 A.D.3d 660, 661, 3 N.Y.S.3d 112 ).
189 A.D.2d 580, 580, 592 N.Y.S.2d 36 ). Further, the petitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed the family offense of menacing in the second degree, as there was no evidence that she engaged in a “course of conduct” or “ repeatedly committed acts” which placed or attempted to place the petitioner “ in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death” (penal law § 120.14[2] ). SIMILARLY, THE PEtitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed the family offense of menacing in the third degree, as there was no evidence that she intentionally placed or attempted to place him in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury, or physical injury (see Penal Law § 120.15 ). Accordingly, we vacate the findings that the appellant committed the family offenses of “attempted assault” and “menacing” (see Matter of
Jordan v. Verni, 139 A.D.3d 1067, 30 N.Y.S.3d 841 ).
Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis to disturb the order of protection (see Family Ct. Act § 842
Filipowski v. Sullivan–Tirelli, 139 A.D.3d 1063, 30 N.Y.S.3d 825 ; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenstock v. Rosenstock
...which served no legitimate purpose (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1] ; Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; see also Matter of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d 895, 896, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226 ; Matter of Pochat v. Pochat, 125 A.D.3d 660, 661–662, 3 N.Y.S.3d 112 ). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the order of......
-
Stanislaus v. Stanislaus
...petition" (Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537, quoting Family Ct. Act § 832 ; see Matter of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d 895, 896, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226 ; Matter of Bah v. Bah, 112 A.D.3d 921, 921–922, 978 N.Y.S.2d 301 ). "The determination of whether a family offen......
-
Shank v. Shank
...152 A.D.3d 674, 60 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d 951, 952, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Matter of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d 895, 896, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226 ).Here, according due deference to the credibility determinations of the Family Court, a fair preponderance of the......
-
M.B. v. L.T.
...N.Y.2d 412, 428, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28 ; Matter of Acevedo v. Acevedo, 145 A.D.3d 773, 43 N.Y.S.3d 443 ; Matter of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d 895, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226 ; Matter of Ovsanik v. Ovsanik, 89 A.D.3d 1451, 932 N.Y.S.2d 297 ...