Matter of Banks v Opoku

Matter of Banks v Opoku 2013 NY Slip Op 05568 Decided on August 7, 2013 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 August 7, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
2012-09468
(Docket No. O-22070-11)

[*1]In the Matter of Tristin Banks, respondent,

v

Kwame Opoku, appellant.




Karl E. Bonheim, Riverhead, N.Y., for appellant.
Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, N.Y., for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kwame Opoku appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated October 11, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and to refrain from harassing the petitioner.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the petitioner established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007), that the appellant, who, inter alia, made verbal threats to the petitioner in the hallway of the Family Court building and physically blocked the petitioner's car from exiting the parking lot of the Family Court, engaged in threatening behavior that recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm (see Penal Law § 240.20; People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128-129; see generally Matter of Cassie v Cassie, _____ AD3d _____, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446 [2d Dept 2013]; cf. Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621; Matter of Bartley v Bartley, 48 AD3d 678, 679). Accordingly, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed acts which constituted the family offense of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033), warranting the issuance of an order of protection.
SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court