Matter of Gelardi v Gelardi
2009 NY Slip Op 03727 [62 AD3d 701]
May 5, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009


In the Matter of Jeannie Gelardi, Respondent,
v
MichelleGelardi, Appellant.

[*1]Feldman, Kleidman & Coffey, LLP, Fishkill, N.Y. (David R. Zagon of counsel), forappellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Michelle Gelardiappeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of protection of the Family Court,Orange County (Bovina, J.), entered December 11, 2007, as directed that it remain in effect up toand including December 11, 2011, and (2) so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition ofthe same court dated January 2, 2008, as, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, foundthat she committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree within themeaning of Family Court Act § 812, and, in effect, directed her to comply with the termsof the order of protection entered December 11, 2007.

Ordered that the order of protection is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereofdirecting that it shall remain in effect up to and including December 11, 2011, and substitutingtherefor a provision directing that the order of protection shall remain in effect up to andincluding December 11, 2009; as so modified, the order of protection is affirmed insofar asappealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.

The order of protection, which states that it shall remain in effect up to and includingDecember 11, 2011, fails to set forth, as required by Family Court Act § 842, the requiredfinding of aggravating circumstances. Thus, the duration of the order of protection may notexceed a period of two years. [*2]Accordingly, the order ofprotection must be modified to remain in effect up to and including December 11, 2009 (seeFamily Ct Act §§ 842, 827 [a] [vii]; Matter of Rosario WW. v Ellen WW.,309 AD2d 984 [2003]; Matter of Baker v Ratoon, 251 AD2d 921 [1998]; Matterof Zirkind v Zirkind, 218 AD2d 745 [1995]; cf. Matter of Guernsey v Guernsey, 37 AD3d 989 [2007];Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 254 AD2d 361, 362 [1998]; see also Matter of CharleneJ.R. v Walter A.M., 307 AD2d 1038 [2003]).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Dickerson andBelen, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.