Matter of Andrew C. B. v Allegra B.J.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family offense proceeding involving whether a former domestic partner's angry statement during a dispute over a dog constituted harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.26(1) [offense covering physical contact or threats made with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm], and whether Family Court had jurisdiction under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) [granting Family Court jurisdiction over certain family offense matters involving persons in an intimate relationship].
The Family Court, after a hearing, found that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against petitioner.
The Appellate Division vacated the Family Court order and dismissed the petition.
Although the Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction because the parties had previously been registered domestic partners and thus had an intimate relationship, the evidence did not show a genuine threat or conduct rising above a crude outburst. Respondent's statement was not supported by other words or acts showing a real threat of physical harm, and petitioner remained in the apartment and continued arguing after the remark.
Background
The parties were former domestic partners registered with the City of New York from March 10, 2020 to August 15, 2022. Their dispute arose over ownership and custody of a dog adopted during the partnership. On May 22, 2024, petitioner was supposed to return the dog to respondent, but instead brought a document for respondent to sign giving him all ownership and custody rights. During an argument in respondent's apartment, respondent, upset, said to her fiancé that she would have to go to Philadelphia, where they sell guns, and shoot petitioner because that was the only way she would get her dog back. The record also showed that petitioner stayed in the apartment for another 10 to 20 minutes after the statement, continued arguing, and admitted that respondent did not touch him or throw anything.
Lower Court Decision
The Family Court found that respondent committed harassment in the second degree and issued an order against her based on the May 22, 2024 incident.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the order, vacated it, and dismissed the petition. The Court held that Family Court jurisdiction existed under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) because the parties' former domestic partnership established an intimate relationship even though the relationship had ended before the petition was filed. However, the Court concluded that the alleged threat did not constitute harassment in the second degree because it was merely a crude outburst, was not accompanied by conduct showing a genuine intent to carry it out, and did not create a clear and present danger of serious harm.
Legal Significance
This decision confirms that former domestic partners may remain within Family Court's family offense jurisdiction based on their past intimate relationship, even years after the relationship ends. At the same time, it reinforces that offensive or angry language alone does not automatically amount to harassment in the second degree; courts must distinguish protected or nonactionable outbursts from true threats supported by surrounding conduct.
A Family Court can hear a family offense petition between former domestic partners, but a single heated statement made during an argument will not sustain a harassment finding unless the record shows it was a genuine threat rather than an angry outburst.