Hope for men who are falsely accused of family offenses

Lisa Beth Older, a New York Divorce Lawyer, comments on a Family Offense and Order of Protection case.

In the below case decided January 25, 2011 the Appellate Court reversed the Family Court Order in a Family Offense case in New York and held that the facts at the hearing did not establish that the husband had committed a family offense.

Decided on January 25, 2011
 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Deciding Judges of the Appellate Division:
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

2010-04652
(Docket No. O-2697-09)
 

In the Matter of Charles J. Smith, appellant,

v

Patricia J. Smith, respondent.

John A. Reno, Deer Park, N.Y., for appellant.
The Sallah Law Firm P.C., Holtsville, N.Y. (Dean J. Sallah of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 2, 2010, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he had committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, in effect, granted the petition for an order of protection.

ORDERED that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The record does not support the Family Court’s determination that the husband committed a family offense warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]; § 832; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d 496).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the husband’s remaining contentions.
COVELLO, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court

Share this post