Matter of Knibbs v Zeman
2011 NY Slip Op 05958 [86 AD3d 568]
July 12, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 31, 2011


In the Matter of Shana L. Knibbs, Respondent,
v
CraigZeman, Appellant.

[*1]Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard N. Lentino, Middletown, N.Y., for respondent.

Jessica Bacal, Katonah, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from(1) an order of fact-finding of the Supreme Court, Orange County (IDV Part) (Bivona, J.), datedMarch 25, 2010, which, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that he hadcommitted the family offense of reckless endangerment based on his violation of previous ordersof protection, (2) an order of disposition of the same court, also dated March 25, 2010, whichdirected the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the mother and the subject child for aperiod of five years, and (3) an order of disposition of the same court, also dated March 25, 2010,which placed him on probation under the supervision of the Orange County Department ofProbation for a period of one year.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter ofRubackin v Rubackin, 62 AD3d 11, 13 [2009]). Here, the Supreme Court properlydetermined that the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the fathercommitted an act constituting the family offense of reckless endangerment, which warranted anorder of protection in favor of the mother and the subject child for a period of five years andplacing the father on probation for a period of one year (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]; § 841 [c], [d]; Matter ofGowrie v Squires, 71 AD3d 1023 [2010]).

Contrary to the father's contention, the constitutional protection against double jeopardypresented no bar to the family offense proceeding (see People v Wood, 95 NY2d 509,512-513 [2000]; Matter of Schneider vArata, 81 AD3d 652 [2011]; Matter of Alfeo v Alfeo, 306 AD2d 471 [2003]).Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, 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.