Matter of Little v Renz

Matter of Matter of Little v Renz 2011 NY Slip Op 09128 Decided on December 13, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
PLUMMER E. LOTT
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-00356
(Docket No. O-36543-10)

[*1]In the Matter of Frederick Little, appellant,

v

Sandye Renz, respondent.




Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Heather Kalachman and
Barbara Dildine of counsel), attorney
for the children.


DECISION & ORDER

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated December 22, 2010, which, without a hearing, denied his petition and dismissed the proceeding, without prejudice to renew.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A proceeding pursuant to article eight of the Family Court Act is originated by the filing of a petition containing, among other things, an allegation that the respondent committed an enumerated family offense (see Family Ct Act §§ 812[1], 821[1][a]). As a general matter, the factual allegations in a pleading must be "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense" (CPLR 3013; see Family Ct Act § 165; Matter of Bohlman v Bohlman, 114 AD2d 845).

Here, the petition was not "a vague and conclusory repetition of the statutory language" (Victoria T. Enters., Inc. v Charmer Indus., Inc., 63 AD3d 1698, 1698), inasmuch as it alleged specific acts committed at identified places and times, which, if proven, would constitute a family offense (cf. Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838; Matter of Morisseau v Morisseau, 27 AD3d 651, 652; Matter of Vasciannio v Nedrick, 305 AD2d 420, 421; Matter of Brennan v Anesi, 283 AD2d 693, 694-695; Matter of Jones v Roper, 187 AD2d 593, 593). Accordingly, the allegations contained in the petition were sufficient to allege a family offense enumerated in Family Court Act § 812(1), and the Family Court erred in denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding on the ground that the petition was insufficient (see Family Ct Act § 821[1][a]; Matter of McFadden v McFadden, 83 AD3d 943, 943; Matter of Testman v Roman, 78 AD3d 719, 720).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court