A New York appellate court has upheld a Family Court decision that granted a two-year order of protection for a mother following incidents of menacing behavior by the father. This ruling, issued on September 29, 2026, affects the ongoing safety and legal rights of the parties involved, particularly the mother and her child. The court's decision emphasizes the seriousness of domestic violence and the importance of protecting victims.

The case, known as Matter of S.G. v. C.M., arose from a dispute between S.G., the petitioner and mother, and C.M., the respondent and father. The Family Court found that C.M. had committed two counts of menacing in the third degree against S.G. This ruling was based on evidence presented during a hearing, where S.G. testified about her experiences of fear and intimidation due to C.M.'s actions.

The events leading to this court case began with multiple incidents of aggressive behavior from C.M. towards S.G. In February 2023, S.G. reported that C.M. berated her, used offensive language, and made threatening gestures. This behavior reportedly caused S.G. to feel terrified. A more alarming incident occurred in October 2023, when C.M. threatened to break S.G.'s neck during an argument. These incidents prompted S.G. to seek legal protection, leading to the Family Court's involvement.

The Family Court, presided over by Judge Pamela B. Scheininger, conducted a thorough examination of the evidence presented. The court found that S.G. had established her case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it was more likely than not that C.M.'s actions placed her in fear of serious harm. The court's ruling emphasized the credibility of S.G.'s testimony, stating that she experienced fear due to C.M.'s aggressive words and actions.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reviewed the Family Court's decision and affirmed it without costs. The ruling stated, "Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent placed petitioner in fear of 'death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury' through his aggressive words and actions." The judges on the appellate panel included Justices Scarpulla, Gesmer, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, and Chan.

The court also addressed C.M.'s arguments against the Family Court's decision. C.M. claimed that the court erred by denying his motion to preclude S.G. from presenting evidence at trial due to her failure to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars. The appellate court found this argument unconvincing, noting that S.G. did not have legal counsel when the request was made and that C.M. had not shown any prejudice from her failure to respond.

Additionally, C.M. argued that the Family Court should have held a separate dispositional hearing before granting the order of protection. However, the appellate court ruled that this argument was raised too late and was unpreserved for appeal. The court noted that there is no statutory requirement for a separate hearing in such cases, and C.M. had waived his right to demand one by not objecting during the Family Court proceedings.

This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence victims and the legal framework surrounding protective orders. By affirming the Family Court's decision, the appellate court reinforced the importance of taking claims of menacing and intimidation seriously. The ruling serves as a reminder that victims of domestic violence can seek legal recourse and that courts will take appropriate measures to ensure their safety.

The decision in Matter of S.G. v. C.M. highlights the ongoing challenges faced by individuals in abusive relationships and the legal protections available to them. It emphasizes the need for courts to act decisively in cases involving threats and intimidation, ensuring that victims can live without fear of further harm.

Looking ahead, C.M. may have the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases. The outcome of this case could influence future decisions related to domestic violence and protective orders in New York State.