A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's order of protection against Kemeshia Horrell, affecting how family offense cases are handled in the state. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued its ruling on September 30, 2026, in the case of Matter of Leviene v. Horrell (Docket No. 2025-08925). This decision is significant for individuals involved in family court proceedings, as it clarifies the standards required to establish a family offense.
The case began when Marjorie Leviene filed a petition against Horrell in April 2018, seeking an order of protection. The Family Court found Horrell committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and issued an order of protection in favor of Leviene. However, Horrell appealed the decision, leading to the recent ruling by the appellate court.
The Appellate Division's decision highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner in family offense cases. According to the Family Court Act, the petitioner must establish the family offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The court noted, "the evidence failed to establish that the appellant committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, as there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant's conduct was committed with the intent to cause, or recklessly posed a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm." This ruling emphasizes the importance of credible evidence in such cases.
The appellate court's ruling was unanimous, with Justices Colleen D. Duffy, Betsy Barros, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Lisa S. Ottley concurring. The court reversed the Family Court's order and vacated the order of protection against Horrell, effectively dismissing Leviene's petition.
This ruling could have broader implications for future family offense cases in New York. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for clear evidence when alleging a family offense, potentially making it more challenging for petitioners to secure orders of protection without substantial proof. This clarification may encourage individuals involved in similar disputes to carefully consider the evidence they present in court.
Moving forward, this ruling may impact how family courts evaluate cases involving allegations of disorderly conduct and other family offenses. It underscores the need for a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. The decision may also prompt petitioners to seek legal advice to ensure they meet the required burden of proof before filing for an order of protection.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, the reversal by the Appellate Division typically concludes the matter unless further legal action is taken. There are currently no related cases pending that are directly associated with this ruling.