Matter of Maurice M. (Kinyamu), 125 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Maurice M. (Kinyamu), 125 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …as the court of appeals has declared that penal law 240.30 (1), as it existed at the time of the decision on the petition, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad at p. 661 ⚠ not in text
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Armanious v. Armanious
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Jordan v Verni, 139 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2016]; Matter of Thompson v Fawcett, 131 AD3d 620 [2015]; Matter of Pochat v Pochat, 125 AD3d 660, 661 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosenstock v. Rosenstock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The evidence demonstrated that the mother, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the father, engaged in a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed the father, and which served no legitimate purpose (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see also Matter of Frimer v Frimer, 143 AD3d 895, 896 [2016]; Matter of Pochat v Pochat, 125 AD3d 660, 661-662 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Frimer v. Frimer (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The evidence demonstrated that the appellant, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the petitioner, engaged in a course of conduct, consisting of threatening to call the police and make false accusations against the petitioner, cursing at the petitioner, shoving the petitioner, and throwing his personal belongings, which alarmed or seriously annoyed the petitioner and served no legitimate purpose (see Matter of Jacobs v Jacobs, 138 AD3d 742, 743 [2016]; Matter of Xin Li v Ramos, 125 AD3d 681, 682 [2015]; Matter of Pochat v Pochat, 125 AD3d 660, 661 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jordan v. Verni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Here, the testimony proffered at the fact-finding hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed acts which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Pochat v Pochat, 125 AD3d 660, 661 [2015]; Matter of Jackson v Idlett, 103 AD3d at 723 ; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909, 910 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitney v. Judge
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We also vacate the finding therein that respondent committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree insofar as that finding is premised on former subdivision (1) of Penal Law § 240.30, inasmuch “as the Court of Appeals has declared that Penal Law § 240.30 (1), as it existed at the time of the decision on the petition, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” (Matter of Pochat v Pochat, 125 AD3d 660, 661 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 905 [2015], citing People v Golb, 23 NY3d 455, 467-468 [2014], rearg denied 24 NY3d 932 [2014], cert denied 574 US —, 135 S Ct 100…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of Maurice M. [Kinyamu], 125 AD3d 660, 660 [2015]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Maurice M., Appellant. Richard Kinyamu, Respondent
2013-00540.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 4, 2015.
125 A.D.3d 660
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding for permission to administer medication to a patient without his consent, Maurice M. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated November 13, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from expired by its own terms during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal has been rendered academic. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the appeal does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Anonymous v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 70 NY2d 972, 974 [1988]; Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798 [1987]; Matter of Carpeah N. [Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.], 77 AD3d 836 [2010]).

Dillon, J.R, Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.