Z.B. v. L.S.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: O-03313-21
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 51024 (U)
• Parties: In the Matter of a Family Offense Proceeding Under Article 8 of the Family Court Act Z.B., Petitioner, v. L.S., Respondent.
• Court: New York Family Court

2022 NY Slip Op 51024(U)

In the Matter of a Family Offense Proceeding Under Article 8 of the Family Court Act Z.B., Petitioner,
v.
L.S., Respondent.

No. O-03313-21

Family Court, New York County

October 18, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

Seth Schraier, Esq. for Petitioner;

Paul D'Emilia, Esq. for Respondent

Hon. Hasa A. Kingo, J.F.C.

NOTICE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.

In this proceeding brought under Article 8 of the Family Court Act, respondent L.S. ("respondent"), through counsel, moves to dismiss petitioner Z.B.'s ("petitioner") petition following the close of petitioner's case at fact-finding. Respondent argues that petitioner has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent committed any qualifying family offenses. Petitioner, through her counsel, opposes the motion by arguing that her petition must be viewed in a light most favorable. After considering the parties arguments on the record, and after a thorough review of the evidence presented by petitioner during the fact-finding, including recordings of the proceeding that are incorporated by reference, respondent's motion is granted.

Background

Petitioner and respondent were previously married, share a child in common, and formerly resided together. On July 12, 2021, petitioner filed a family offense petition in the Family Court in New York County. After issue was joined, and following several court conferences at which resolution could not be achieved, the matter was set for a fact-finding hearing on June 9, 2022, June 14, 2022, and. Ultimately, testimony was heard on June 9, 2022, and. Petitioner's most prominent allegation within her petition, as testified to throughout the course of the fact-finding, related to respondent's purported communications to petitioner that respondent would post a video of petitioner online. Petitioner further testified that her last in-person contact with respondent occurred in 2015 when she allowed respondent to stay in her home during a tumultuous time in respondent's life when respondent needed a place to stay. Petitioner testified, without proof, that she believed that the time when respondent briefly stayed with petitioner in 2015 must have been the time when respondent had an opportunity to film petitioner for purposes of creating a video purportedly depicting petitioner in an "embarrassing" light. Petitioner testified that she never observed respondent film petitioner during respondent's stay. Nevertheless, petitioner testified that after respondent's stay, respondent contacted petitioner in 2016 and stated that he had posted a video of petitioner online. Petitioner testified that she knew nothing about the video's content, and that she never viewed the video. Petitioner then testified that she did not have any contact with respondent between 2016 and 2021. In 2021, petitioner testified that respondent contacted her from a blocked number to state, once again, that he had posted a video online of petitioner. Petitioner then testified that she knew nothing about the video's content. Petitioner did testify to a general belief that she assumed that phone calls she received...