| Matter of Rosenbloom v Rosenbloom |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08031 [122 AD3d 864] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Allison S. Rosenbloom,Respondent, v Mark S. Rosenbloom, Appellant. |
Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Bryce R.Levine of counsel), for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Mark S.Rosenbloom appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County(Stack, J.H.O.), dated July 29, 2013, which, after a hearing, and upon, in effect, a findingthat he had committed certain family offenses, directed him to refrain from committingcertain proscribed actions against Allison S. Rosenbloom.
Ordered that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs ordisbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 28, 2014, theappeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which maypotentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Hohn v Guirand,97 AD3d 578 [2012]; Matter of Scioscia v Scioscia, 89 AD3d 739, 739-740[2011]; Matter of Willis vRhinehart, 76 AD3d 641, 642 [2010]).
The Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential toits determination to grant the petition for an order of protection (see CPLR 4213[b]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025-1026 [1979]; Matter of Smith v Falco-Boric,87 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2011]). However, remittal is not necessary, because the recordis sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (seeMatter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d at 1026; Matter of Smith v Falco-Boric, 87AD3d at 1147). The record does not support the Family Court's finding, in effect, that theappellant committed a family offense warranting the issuance of an order of protection(see Family Ct Act § 812; Matter of Smith v Falco-Boric, 87AD3d at 1147).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contention.Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.