preview

People V. Rower Case Summary

Decent Essays

WAYNE F. CROWE, JR., an attorney duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms under the penalties of perjury that the following statements are true and accurate: 1. I am the attorney for the Petitioner in the above-referenced special proceeding, wherein Petitioner seeks an Order of Protection against his brother in law, Respondent Joza. 2. The Respondent has moved herein for an order pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) dismissing the Petitioner’s family offense petition and requests that this Court vacate the Temporary Order of Protection issued in conjunction therewith. For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s motion must be dismissed. 3. In essence, Respondent is seeking amplification of the pleadings, …show more content…

The facts as taken as true and all reasonable inferences that flow therefrom establish that a course of conduct was taken by Respondent against Petitioner. 9. In People v Pugash, 179 Misc2d 819 (S. Ct. Appellate Term, 2d Dept 1999) the Court held that three telephone calls from the defendant to the victim was sufficient to establish a course of conduct as required by Penal Law § 240.26. 10. Case law suggests that an isolated incident is insufficient to make a prima facie showing of harassment, but does not establish a bright line rule about the quantity of incidents that constitute a course of conduct. In this case, the petition alleges several text messages and fully describes at least two of them. This is sufficient to establish a course of conduct. 11. For an intentional crime, the perpetrator must engage in conduct with the conscious objective and purpose of causing a particular unlawful result. People v Atkinson, 21 AD3d 145 (2d Dept 2005). Intent for the purposes of statutory requirements under the Penal Law can be inferred from the act itself or from the defendant’s [Respondent’s] conduct and the surrounding circumstances. People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 (1977). More importantly, “t]he question of whether [respondent] acted with the requisite intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the complainant is an issue to be determined at trial. People v Grimaldi, 49 Misc 3d 1204(A) [Crim Ct

Get Access