IN RE OPPORTUNE N., petres, v. CLARENCE N., res-res

10639. IN RE OPPORTUNE N., petres, v. CLARENCE N., res-res — Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for ap — Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn (Geanine Towers of counsel), for res — JULIAN A. HERTZ, LARCHMONT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about September 2, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing in proceedings brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, determined that respondent husband had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the second degree; attempted assault in the third degree; menacing in the third degree; disorderly conduct; harassment in the second degree (two counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10639. IN RE OPPORTUNE N., petres, v. CLARENCE N., res-res — Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for ap — Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn (Geanine Towers of counsel), for res — JULIAN A. HERTZ, LARCHMONT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about September 2, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing in proceedings brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, determined that respondent husband had committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the second degree; attempted assault in the third degree; menacing in the third degree; disorderly conduct; harassment in the second degree (two counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Family Court by appearing in the family offense proceeding commenced by petitioner wife, who was then residing in a shelter in New York State, and the Family Court therefore had personal jurisdiction over him. Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense is not limited by geography (see Family Court Act §§812, 818), and the court therefore could receive evidence and make fact findings concerning incidents that occurred in Pennsylvania before respondent’s wife moved to New York with her daughters (see Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 37-38 [2d Dept 2010]).

IN RE OPPORTUNE N., petres, v. CLARENCE N., res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal