Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case Matter of Millie P. v. Arthur P., decided on November 7, 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Family Court order that issued a two-year non-exclusionary order of protection against the father, Arthur P., in favor of his daughter, Millie P. The court, presided over by Judge Emily Morales-Minerva, found that the incident prompting the order was isolated and that the father's threat, while distressing, did not necessitate a full stay-away order from their shared residence of 37 years. The Family Court exercised its discretion appropriately, citing that the finding of menacing in the third degree did not compel a more restrictive order of protection. The ruling was unanimously affirmed without costs, emphasizing the court's assessment of the situation and the father's presence in the home.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Family Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, reinforcing the appropriateness of its judgment and the discretionary power exercised.
Reasoning: The ruling was unanimously affirmed without costs, emphasizing the court's assessment of the situation and the father's presence in the home.
Judicial Discretion in Granting Orders of Protectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion by determining that the father's conduct did not warrant a full stay-away order, taking into account the isolated nature of the incident and the duration of their cohabitation.
Reasoning: The court...found that the incident prompting the order was isolated and that the father's threat, while distressing, did not necessitate a full stay-away order from their shared residence of 37 years.
Menacing in the Third Degreesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The finding of menacing in the third degree was deemed sufficient for a non-exclusionary order, but not for a more restrictive measure.
Reasoning: The Family Court exercised its discretion appropriately, citing that the finding of menacing in the third degree did not compel a more restrictive order of protection.
Non-Exclusionary Order of Protectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court issued a non-exclusionary order of protection for the daughter against her father, allowing him to remain in their shared home.
Reasoning: The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Family Court order that issued a two-year non-exclusionary order of protection against the father, Arthur P., in favor of his daughter, Millie P.