FirstAlerts

Penn Yan Woman Charged with Criminal Contempt in Order of Protection Case

Tara M. Sy, 47, of Penn Yan, faces a charge of second-degree criminal contempt, according to Yates County sheriff's deputies.

3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 7:23 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 7, 2026, 5:53 a.m. ETWritten Sep 7, 2026, 7:30 a.m. ET
Tara M. Sy, 47, of Penn Yan, has been with second-degree criminal contempt, according to Yates County sheriff's deputies. The charge stems from allegations that Sy violated an order of protection. Sy was after deputies investigated the reported violation. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; Sy has not been tried and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The specific details of the alleged violation have not been fully detailed in available reports.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 7, 2026, 7:25 a.m. ET

    Penn Yan Woman Charged with Criminal Contempt in Order of Protection Case

    Tara M. Sy, 47, of Penn Yan, has been charged with second-degree criminal contempt, as reported by FingerLakes1.com. The charge stems from allegations that Sy violated an order of protection, a claim made after an investigation by Yates County sheriff's deputies.

    As this is only a charge, the matter is undecided, and Sy is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Further proceedings will determine the outcome.

  2. Sep 7, 2026, 7:23 a.m. ETFirst report

    Penn Yan Woman Charged with Criminal Contempt After Order of Protection Violation

    Tara M. Sy, 47, of Penn Yan, has been charged with second-degree criminal contempt. The charge stems from an alleged violation of an order of protection.

    Yates County sheriff's deputies are investigating the case. The charge is at the charging stage, and Sy is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further details have not been released.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 17 Sept 2026, 11:25current

    First published.

  2. Version 17 Sept 2026, 11:23current

    First published.

  3. Version 17 Sept 2026, 11:30current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.