| Matter of Sommella v Kimble |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03960 [150 AD3d 1018] |
| May 17, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Dominick V. Sommella, Jr.,Respondent, v Mark Kimble, Appellant. |
Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant.
Appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, OrangeCounty (Christine P. Krahulik, J.), entered April 29, 2016, and (2) an order of protection of thesame court entered February 9, 2016. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after a hearing,granted the family offense petition against the appellant, and directed him to comply with theconditions specified in the order of protection for a period of one year. The order of protectiondirected the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including February 9,2017.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order of protection areaffirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Initially, although the order of protection issued by the Family Court in connection with thefamily offense petition expired by its own terms on February 9, 2017, the appeal from the orderof protection has not been rendered academic " 'given the totality of the enduring legaland reputational consequences of the contested order of protection' " (Matter of Pierre v Dal, 142 AD3d1021, 1022 [2016], quoting Matterof Veronica P. v Radcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 673 [2015]; see Matter of Crenshaw vThorpe-Crenshaw, 146 AD3d 951, 951-952 [2017]; Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov, 134 AD3d 1122, 1122[2015]).
In this family offense proceeding, the Family Court conducted a fact-finding hearing onFebruary 9, 2016, after which it issued the order of protection against the appellant. Thereafter,the court issued an order of fact-finding and disposition entered April 29, 2016. Contrary to theappellant's contention, the testimony proffered at the fact-finding hearing established, by a fairpreponderance of the evidence, that he committed the family offense of harassment in the seconddegree (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see Matter of Molina v Hart, 143 AD3d 723, 723 [2016]; Matter of Kiani v Kiani, 134 AD3d1036, 1037 [2015]).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection and granted thepetition. Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.