Sonia S. v. Pedro Antonio S.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1207. |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03978,139 A.D.3d 546,31 N.Y.S.3d 500 |
| Parties | In re SONIA S., Petitioner–Respondent, v. PEDRO ANTONIO S., Respondent–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
139 A.D.3d 546
31 N.Y.S.3d 500
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03978
In re SONIA S., Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
PEDRO ANTONIO S., Respondent–Appellant.
1207.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 19, 2016.
Siskopoulos Law Firm, LLP, New York (Alexandra Siskopoulos of counsel), for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.
TOM, J.P., SAXE, RICHTER, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2014, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent committed the family offense of menacing in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The allegations that respondent forced petitioner to have sex with him did not divest the Family Court of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case, as the Family Court was authorized to consider whether the conduct in question amounted to any sexual offense enumerated in Family Court Act § 812(1), although the Family Court found such allegations were not proven. Moreover, cases such as Matter of Hamm–Jones v. Jones , 267 A.D.2d 904, 905–906, 702 N.Y.S.2d 130 (3d Dept.1999), which dismissed similar petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pre-date the addition, effective December 15, 2009, of sexual offenses to the Family Court Act (L 2009, ch 476 § 4).
Contrary to respondent's assertions, there is support in the record for the Family Court's determination that the parties were involved in an “intimate relationship” to render the underlying offense a family offense (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1][e] ). Petitioner testified that they were involved from roughly 1995 until 2011, and her testimony was corroborated to some extent by her daughter, who lived with petitioner when respondent visited. While there are issues of credibility as to both parties, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omobolanle O. v. Kevin J.
...tried to take the child with her, causing her to be frightened for her and the child's safety (see Matter of Sonia S. v. Pedro Antonio S., 139 A.D.3d 546, 547, 31 N.Y.S.3d 500 [1st Dept.2016] ; Matter of Daniel R., 49 A.D.3d 266, 267, 853 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.2008] ).The family offense of ......
-
People v. Nevaro
...not related to the confinement of the victim in the apartment. However, we reject defendant's remaining challenges to the sufficiency 31 N.Y.S.3d 500 and weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing ......
-
Yenis C. v. Daniel R., 9950
...in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury (see Family Ct Act § 832 ; Matter of Sonia S. v. Pedro Antonio S., 139 A.D.3d 546, 31 N.Y.S.3d 500 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of William M. v. Elba Q., 121 A.D.3d 489, 994 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Melind M......
-
Lorin F. v. Jason D., 5272
...on and off for at least four years, leaving no doubt that their relationship was intimate (see Matter of Sonia S. v. Pedro Antonio S., 139 A.D.3d 546, 547 [1st Dept. 2016] ).Although the Family Court did not specify which family offense respondent committed, the parties addressed the offens......