A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's dismissal of a family offense petition filed by Marissa Fournier against her estranged husband, Juan Rodriguez Perez. The decision, issued by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on June 26, 2026, is significant as it reinstates Fournier's petition and mandates further proceedings in Family Court. This ruling highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in family law cases, particularly regarding the rights of petitioners.
The case, documented under docket number 303 CAF 25-00368, began when Fournier filed a family offense petition against Perez in Onondaga County Family Court. The petition aimed to address alleged offenses committed by Perez against Fournier. However, the Family Court, presided over by Court Attorney Referee Anthony C. LaValle, dismissed the petition after just one court appearance, citing insufficient evidence of a family offense.
During the sole court appearance, the Referee sought to determine whether to issue a temporary order of protection for Fournier. However, both Fournier and Perez did not consent to the Referee hearing the case. This lack of consent became a central issue in the appellate court's ruling, as it raised questions about the Referee's jurisdiction to dismiss the petition.
The Appellate Division's ruling emphasized that a referee's authority derives from an order of reference by the court, which typically requires the consent of both parties involved. The court stated, "Absent the parties' consent to the reference, the . . . [r]eferee ha[s] the power only to hear and report [their] findings." This means that without proper consent, the Referee acted beyond their jurisdiction when dismissing the petition.
Additionally, the court noted that the Referee failed to inform Fournier of her right to counsel. Under New York law, petitioners in family offense cases are entitled to assigned counsel. The court pointed out that the record did not show that Fournier was informed of this right or that she waived it. The court concluded, "the Referee lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition," reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in family law cases.
The impact of this ruling is significant for individuals seeking protection from family offenses. It underscores the necessity for family court proceedings to adhere to legal standards and ensure that petitioners are informed of their rights. This decision may encourage other individuals in similar situations to pursue their petitions without fear of dismissal based on procedural missteps.
Furthermore, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the jurisdiction of referees in family law cases. It clarifies that referees cannot dismiss petitions without proper consent from both parties and emphasizes the importance of informing petitioners of their rights to legal representation. This may lead to more thorough hearings in family offense cases, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments.
Looking ahead, the case will return to Family Court for further proceedings. The court may need to assign a different referee to handle the case, as suggested by Fournier's request. However, the Appellate Division noted that such assignments should follow the procedures outlined in New York regulations.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the decision made by the Appellate Division is final unless a higher court, such as the New York Court of Appeals, decides to hear the case. At this time, there are no indications of a related case pending that would affect this ruling.