New York, New York – The Brill Legal Group obtained an appellate ruling upholding the dismissal of a family offense petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The First Department held that Family Court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 812 of the Family Court Act. According to the decision, the petition was filed by a stepmother against her adult stepson’s spouse, and the relationship alleged between the parties did not fall within the categories covered by the statute.

“Although Family Court may have jurisdiction over parties who have a relationship of affinity, petitioner is not related by affinity to respondent, as respondent is not a blood relative of petitioner or petitioner’s spouse,” the panel wrote, citing Matter of Anstey v. Palmatier, 23 A.D.3d 780 (3d Dept. 2005). The court noted that while the petitioner had a relationship of affinity with her stepson, “that affinity does not extend to respondent.”

The First Department further concluded that the petition did not allege an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). The panel observed that the petitioner alleged only a hostile relationship with the respondent, pointed to a handful of interactions over a five-year period and acknowledged that the parties never lived in the same household. Those circumstances, the court held, were “insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon Family Court,” citing prior appellate decisions.

The ruling adds to a body of appellate authority addressing when relationships by affinity and nonmarital relationships qualify for Family Court jurisdiction in family offense matters. The panel, consisting of Justices Webber, Mendez, Rodriguez, O’Neill Levy and Michael, cited precedent from multiple departments in concluding that the petition did not meet those statutory thresholds.

CASE INFORMATION

State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
A.G. vs. K.V.
Case No. 2025-00359