Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started
NoticeRegistry
Try Pro

Matter of Krausz v. Englander

Docket 2025-00625

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
New York
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type
Opinion
Case type
Family
Disposition
Affirmed
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 02407
Docket
2025-00625

Appeal from an order of protection entered after a Family Court fact-finding hearing in a proceeding under Family Court Act article 8

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order of protection that found the appellant—who had previously surrendered parental rights and agreed to an adoption—committed harassment in the second degree and fourth-degree stalking against the adoptive child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court directed the appellant to stay away from the child except pursuant to a court-ordered visitation, through December 15, 2026. The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s credibility findings and concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard for the charged family offenses.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the evidence at the Family Court fact-finding hearing established, by a fair preponderance, that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree.
  • Whether the evidence at the Family Court fact-finding hearing established, by a fair preponderance, that the appellant committed the family offense of stalking in the fourth degree.
  • Whether the Family Court’s credibility determinations and resulting order of protection should be disturbed on appeal.

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court gave great weight to the Family Court’s credibility determinations, which are factual findings entitled to deference. The record contained a fair preponderance of evidence supporting both harassment in the second degree and fourth-degree stalking, and the Family Court lawfully issued an order of protection restricting contact with the child except by court-ordered visitation. The appellant’s other arguments were either unpreserved or lacked merit, so there was no basis to overturn the order.

Authorities Cited

  • Penal Law § 240.26(2)
  • Penal Law § 120.45(2)
  • Family Court Act § 812(1)
  • Matter of Jeudy v Duroc237 AD3d 708
  • Matter of Golian v Golyan242 AD3d 745

Parties

Respondent
Devorah Krausz
Appellant
Mirel Frankel Englander
Judge
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Judge
Linda Christopher
Judge
Carl J. Landicino
Judge
Susan Quirk
Attorney
Larry Bachner

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-04-22
Order of protection date
2024-12-16
Protection expiration date
2026-12-15

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult family or appellate counsel

    If the appellant wishes to pursue further review, she should promptly consult an attorney to evaluate whether grounds exist for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other post-judgment relief.

  2. 2

    Comply with the order of protection

    All parties should follow the order’s terms, including the appellant’s stay-away requirement, until the protection expires or is modified by a court.

  3. 3

    Seek modification if circumstances change

    If the appellant believes visitation should be allowed, she may move in the Family Court to modify the order, presenting new evidence that justifies a change.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The appeals court affirmed the Family Court’s order finding the appellant guilty of harassment and stalking and upheld the order of protection requiring her to stay away from the child except for court-ordered visitation.
Who is affected by this order?
The appellant (the child’s biological mother who surrendered parental rights) is barred from contact with the child except pursuant to court-ordered visitation; the adoptive parent and the child are protected by the order.
Why did the court uphold the order?
Because the Family Court’s fact-finding and credibility determinations were supported by the record and the evidence met the required fair preponderance standard for the family offenses charged.
Can this decision be appealed again?
Further appellate review may be possible, for example to the Court of Appeals, but the decision notes some arguments were unpreserved and the Appellate Division found no reversible error, which narrows prospects for success.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Matter of Krausz v Englander - 2026 NY Slip Op 02407

Matter of Krausz v Englander

2026 NY Slip Op 02407

April 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

In the Matter of Devorah Krausz, etc., respondent,

v

Mirel Frankel Englander, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 22, 2026

2025-00625, (Docket No. O-9518-24)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Larry Bachner, New York, NY, for appellant.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Sharon N. Clarke, J.), dated December 16, 2024. The order of protection, upon a finding, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree, made after a fact-finding hearing, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from the subject child until December 15, 2026, except pursuant to a court order of visitation.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2024, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, against the appellant, on behalf of her adopted child. The appellant, who is the child's biological mother, surrendered her parental rights to the child in 2016 and agreed to the adoption.

After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree. The court then issued an order of protection in which it directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the child, except pursuant to a court order of visitation. This appeal ensued.

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, upon a determination that the allegations were supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence; that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (
see

Matter of Jeudy v Duroc
, 237 AD3d 708, 708-709;
Matter of Renz v Little
, 137 AD3d 920, 921).

Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree (
see
Penal Law § 240.26[2]; Family Ct Act § 812[1];
Matter of Preston v Hormadaly
, ___ AD3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 00900) and stalking in the fourth degree (
see
Penal Law § 120.45[2];
Matter of Golian v Golyan
, 242 AD3d 745, 746-747).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph