Petitioner's claim that he was the boyfriend of respondent's sister, and a friend of respondent, was insufficient to establish an "intimate relationship" within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (1) (e) so as to afford the Family Court jurisdiction over this matter ( see Sponsor's Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2008, ch 326; Matter of Seye v Lamar, 72 AD3d 975; Matter of Mark W. v Damion W., 25 Misc 3d 1148 [Fam Ct, Kings County 2009]; Matter of K.J. v K.K., 23 Misc 3d 754, 758-759 [Fam Ct, Orange County 2009]).
In any event, assuming the court had jurisdiction, petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of first degree harassment against him because his alleged fear that respondent would harm him was not objectively reasonable ( see Penal Law § 240.25; People v Demisse, 24 AD3d 118, 119, lv denied 6 NY3d 833). Respondent's remark that "things would get ugly" if petitioner did not return her property could not be reasonably interpreted as a threat, especially given that they had been friends and that petitioner was dating respondent's sister. Further, petitioner never showed that respondent had ever threatened to shoot him with a gun, or that she would use her gun for purposes beyond the duties of her job as a corrections officer. That petitioner would socialize with respondent at her home even after he filed the petition further undermines any contention of fear.