KANTROWITZ v. LaROCHE

The IAS court abused its discretion in making the order of protection effective for 13 years, where plaintiff sought only a three-year period in accordance with the stipulation that defendant had disavowed; the evidence showed no acts of domestic violence or child abuse after issuance of the temporary order of protection; and plaintiff's experts described defendant as a loving and caring parent. However, caution and concern is warranted, and, accordingly, there should be a three-year order of protection with leave to plaintiff to seek further extensions (Domestic Relations Law § 240[c]; § 252[3]). For lack of objection, defendant failed to preserve his argument that the evidence supporting the finding of child abuse was incompetent hearsay consisting of the children's out-of-court statements. In any event, were we to reach the issue, we would find that such statements were adequately corroborated and properly considered ( see Matter of Le Favour v. Koch, 124 A.D.2d 903, 906, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 605). That part of the IAS court's oral decision imposing a one-year suspended jail sentence on defendant is not reviewable since it was not embodied in the written order on appeal (CPLR 5512[a]; see Matter of Dean, 208 A.D.2d 1030). We have considered and rejected defendant's other contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.