In the Matter of Peru McCarra v John A. Chiaramonte
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law — whether allegations establish an 'intimate relationship' for Family Court jurisdiction under Family Court Act (FCA) § 812 (1) (e) [extends Family Court jurisdiction to family offenses between persons in an intimate relationship, not limited to sexual or cohabiting partners, and excludes casual social or business associations; courts consider the relationship’s nature, frequency, and duration].
Family Court dismissed the family offense petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no qualifying intimate relationship between the parties.
The dismissal order entered without a hearing.
The Appellate Division held that petitioner’s allegations, if credited, could establish an intimate relationship; the Family Court relied only on counsels’ unsworn representations, focused solely on frequency of contact, and denied amendment of an illegible petition, instead of conducting the required multifactorial hearing.
Background
In October 2023, petitioner filed a handwritten family offense petition alleging respondent committed identity theft in 2021–2022. Although not related by blood or direct affinity, petitioner asserted she had known respondent throughout her life and he acted as an 'uncle figure' who helped raise her, with frequent contact until a family rift in 2021. Respondent moved orally to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no consanguinity or affinity and that any connection was through extended family by marriage (respondent’s brother married petitioner’s maternal aunt). Petitioner’s counsel sought leave to amend the illegible petition to clarify the relationship and opposed dismissal under Family Court Act (FCA) § 812 (1) (e).
Lower Court Decision
Without taking testimony or affidavits and before permitting amendment, Family Court dismissed from the bench, reasoning that even if the relationship were deemed intimate, the frequency of contact did not rise to a qualifying familial relationship for a family offense proceeding.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed on the law and remitted for a hearing. It held that petitioner’s assertions—lifelong familiarity, respondent acting as an uncle figure who helped raise her, and frequent contact until 2021—could establish an intimate relationship under FCA § 812 (1) (e). The court found error in relying solely on counsels’ unsworn statements and on the frequency factor, rather than the statute’s multifactor inquiry, and directed a hearing on subject matter jurisdiction and further proceedings, if warranted.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that whether an intimate relationship exists for FCA § 812 (1) (e) jurisdiction is a fact-intensive, multifactorial question that ordinarily requires a hearing when disputed or when the record is undeveloped. Courts may not summarily dismiss based solely on lack of blood/affinity ties or a single factor such as frequency of contact, and should allow clarification or amendment when filings are unclear. Longstanding, direct relationships formed through extended family contexts can potentially qualify if supported by credible evidence.
When the existence of an intimate relationship under FCA § 812 (1) (e) is disputed and the record is insufficient, Family Court must hold a hearing and apply the statutory factors before dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.