Matter of Crawford v. Ally

Matter of Crawford v. Ally

Opinion

 [**714]   [*29]  Petitioner [***2]  appeals from the order and judgment (one paper), of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about September 16, 2020, which denied as moot the petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Criminal Court Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning the appropriateness and scope of a temporary order of protection, and dismissed as moot this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78.

WEBBER, J.

We are asked to decide whether Supreme Court properly denied as moot the petition for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Criminal Court Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning the appropriateness and scope of a temporary order of protection (TOP) and dismissed the proceeding as moot. The parties agree that this proceeding is moot, since the TOP in the underlying criminal proceeding was renewed without the condition that petitioner stay away from the complainant's home, as petitioner had sought, and the charges against petitioner were dismissed while the proceeding was pending in Supreme Court. They disagree as to whether the proceeding presents an exception to the mootness doctrine which would allow us nevertheless to rule on the petition. We [***3]  find that the mootness exception applies here and accordingly, we reverse to the extent of declaring that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing.

On November 3, 2019, petitioner was arrested on a criminal complaint charging her with third-degree assault, petit larceny,  [*30]  obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and second-degree harassment, based on sworn allegations by her partner, nonparty Keivian Mayers (Mayers), that she and two men assaulted him. This incident allegedly occurred inside 1232 Clay Avenue, Apt. 4B, Bronx, New York.

At petitioner's arraignment in Criminal Court, the People consented to petitioner's release but requested a TOP. The court issued a TOP prohibiting petitioner  [****2]  from contacting Mayers and granted petitioner's request that it be "subject to [F]amily [C]ourt modification," but denied her request to issue a "limited" TOP. The TOP itself, effective until November 8, 2019, prohibited petitioner from entering Mayers's home, listed as the address where the  [**715]  alleged incident occurred, except to retrieve personal items the following day.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.