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. The following papers numbered 1 to 17 were read on this motion to suspend visitation: Papers: No(s). Exhibits Notice of Motion 1 Affirmation of Brandy Beltas, Esq. in Support 2-6 A-D Affidavit of M.F. in Support 7 Affirmation of Samuel Feldman, Esq. in Opposition (Response to Motion) 8 Affidavit of J.M. in Opposition 9 Affirmation of Brandy Beltas, Esq. in Reply 10-14 A-D Affidavit of M.F. in Reply 15-17 E-F ORDER AND FACT FINDING AND DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION In this family offense proceeding brought under Article 8 of the Family Court Act, respondent M.F. (“Respondent”) moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1-1, for attorneys’ fees, and for such other and further relief as may be deemed just, necessary, and proper. After consideration of the motion papers and exhibits cited above, procedural history of the case, testimony of the parties offered at a fact-finding hearing, and oral arguments made by counsel, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the motion is granted in part. Background On April 29, 2022, petitioner J.M. (“Petitioner”) filed a family offense petition under Article 8 of the Family Court Act (“FCA”) against Respondent (Docket no. O-03129-22) (the “petition”). On the portion of the petition form wherein one can designate the parties’ relationship, Petitioner selected the box indicating “we live together.” Following an intake appearance before the undersigned, a usual terms temporary order of protection was issued in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent. On May 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for violation of the temporary order of protection (Docket no. O-03129-22/22A). Following an intake appearance on the record before Court Attorney Referee Jacob Maeroff, the violation petition was dismissed pursuant to an order of the same date, for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioner filed a second violation petition on June 9, 2022 (Docket no. O-03129-22/22B) (the “violation petition”), in which he alleges that Respondent engaged in family offenses against him including aggravated harassment, harassment, stalking, and threats. Following an intake appearance on the record before Court Attorney Referee Jessica Brenes, the temporary order of protection was modified to include full stay away and no communication provisions. Respondent now moves to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for sanctions and attorneys’ fees for frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130.1-1. Respondent argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there was no “intimate relationship” or other qualifying relationship between the parties, as required under FCA §812 (1). Moreover, Respondent contests the factual allegations asserted by Petitioner, and asserts that “she never harmed or harassed him” (Beltas affirmation in support at 34). Petitioner opposes the motion and contends that the parties have an intimate friendship that satisfies the requirements set forth in FCA §812 (1)(e). He attests that their families “have been quite close for over 20 years,” the parties shared their locations in a cell phone application, and that the parties have frequent contact and conversations, including conversations regarding sexual and other personal or sensitive topics (Flanagan affidavit in opposition
