LANGDON, KELLY A. v. LANGDON, DANIEL J. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    128
    CAF 14-01588
    PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF KELLY A. LANGDON,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    DANIEL J. LANGDON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    ----------------------------------------
    IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL J. LANGDON,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    V
    KELLY A. LANGDON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    ----------------------------------------
    IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL J. LANGDON,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    V
    KELLY A. LANGDON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County
    (Terrence M. Parker, A.J.), entered July 17, 2014 in proceedings
    pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8. The order, among other
    things, dismissed respondent-petitioner Daniel J. Langdon’s family
    offense petition.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously modified on the law by reinstating the family offense
    petition and violation petition of respondent-petitioner and as
    modified the order is affirmed without costs and the matter is
    remitted to Family Court, Wyoming County, for further proceedings in
    accordance with the following memorandum: In appeal No. 1,
    respondent-petitioner father appeals from an order of fact-finding and
    disposition in proceedings pursuant to articles 6 and 8 of the Family
    Court Act that, inter alia, dismissed his family offense petition and
    denied, without making any findings of fact, his violation petition.
    In appeal No. 2, the father appeals from an order of protection issued
    pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, directing the father to
    refrain from, inter alia, harassing petitioner-respondent mother, his
    -2-                           128
    CAF 14-01588
    former wife.
    With respect to appeal No. 1, the father contends that Family
    Court erred in dismissing his family offense petition on the ground
    that “he offered no proof in support of his family offense petition.”
    We agree. We conclude that the record establishes that the father
    testified to conduct by the mother that could support a determination
    that she committed a family offense. Although the record is
    sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact (see
    generally Matter of Williams v Tucker, 2 AD3d 1366, 1367, lv denied 2
    NY3d 705), we decline to do so. Given the conflicting versions of the
    same events offered by the parties at the hearing, we consider the
    credibility of the parties as witnesses to be crucial to the
    resolution of the father’s family offense petition (see Matter of
    Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 838; see generally Matter of Oakes v
    Oakes, 115 AD3d 956, 956-957). Indeed, “[e]ffective appellate review
    . . . requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial
    court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses”
    (Giordano v Giordano, 93 AD2d 310, 312). We likewise agree with the
    father’s further contention in appeal No. 1 that the court failed to
    make any findings of fact with respect to his violation petition.
    Although the order stated that “any and all remaining issues are
    hereby denied,” the court failed “to set forth those facts essential
    to its decision” (Matter of Graci v Graci, 187 AD2d 970, 971). We
    therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by reinstating the father’s
    family offense petition and violation petition and we remit the matter
    to Family Court to make the requisite factual findings on those
    petitions and, if the court deems it appropriate upon making such
    findings, a new determination on each petition (see generally Matter
    of Wagner v Wagner, 222 AD2d 1039, 1040).
    The father contends in appeal No. 2 that the court erred in
    determining that he committed a family offense. Initially, we note
    that the order of protection appealed from in appeal No. 2 has
    expired, and we therefore ordinarily would dismiss the appeal as moot
    (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285, lv
    denied 10 NY3d 705). However, inasmuch as the father challenges only
    the court’s finding that he committed a family offense and, “ ‘in
    light of enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an
    adjudication that a party has committed a family offense,’ ” we
    conclude that “the appeal from so much of the order . . . as made that
    adjudication is not academic” (Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924,
    925). We note that the court failed to specify the particular family
    offense under Family Court Act § 812 (1) that the father allegedly
    committed. Nonetheless, remittal is not necessary because the record
    is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the
    evidence (see Matter of Elizabeth X. v Irving Y., 132 AD3d 1100, 1101;
    Matter of Stewart v Lassiter, 103 AD3d 734, 734). Upon such review,
    we conclude that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support a
    finding by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the father
    committed any of the enumerated family offenses upon which an order of
    protection may be predicated (see Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt, 97
    AD3d 1112, 1113; Matter of Ebony J. v Clarence D., 46 AD3d 309, 309;
    see also Family Ct Act § 812 [1]). We therefore reverse the order in
    -3-                           128
    CAF 14-01588
    appeal No. 2 and dismiss the petition (see generally Matter of
    Woodruff v Rogers, 50 AD3d 1571, 1571-1572, lv denied 10 NY3d 717).
    Entered:   March 18, 2016                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAF 14-01588

Filed Date: 3/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016