The defendant allegedly entered prohibited contact before a porch dispute escalated into a gasoline attack.
DRYDEN, N.Y. — A court order intended to restrict contact between a Dryden man and a woman is now a central piece of an attempted-murder case accusing him of pouring gasoline over her, two children and a home before trying to start a fire.
Tompkins County deputies said Matthew J. Demming, 53, appeared at the woman’s Schwan Drive residence on June 6 despite an existing order of protection. What followed produced five charges, including first-degree criminal contempt and aggravated family offense in addition to second-degree attempted murder. The order’s origin and exact restrictions have not been released, but prosecutors will need to prove its validity, Demming’s knowledge of it and the conduct alleged during the encounter.
Orders of protection are judicial commands, not criminal convictions by themselves. Depending on the case, an order may require a person to stay away from another person and specified locations, refrain from communication or avoid threatening and harassing conduct. The Sheriff’s Office described the order involving Demming only as court-issued and said his arrival at the residence violated it. Officials did not identify the issuing court, filing date, expiration date or underlying proceeding. They also did not say whether the order was temporary or final. Those details are likely contained in court records that prosecutors can use to show what Demming was legally prohibited from doing when he allegedly reached the front porch.
The confrontation was reported at about 10:18 a.m. Deputies and New York State Police headed to the home after receiving a call about a dispute. Before officers arrived, witnesses reported seeing a white man pour gasoline on the residence and leave. Investigators said Demming and the woman had argued on the porch while her two children were present. Demming then allegedly took a gasoline can from beside the home and poured fuel onto all three people and the residence. Authorities said he tried to ignite the gasoline with a lighter, but a witness intervened and physically removed him. No fire started, and no physical injuries were reported.
The criminal-contempt accusation addresses the alleged defiance of the court order rather than the full scope of the claimed attempt to start a fire. New York law allows first-degree criminal contempt charges under several circumstances involving a protection order, including specified threats, physical contact or menacing behavior that places a protected person in fear of injury or death. The precise subsection alleged against Demming was not included in the Sheriff’s Office announcement. A formal charging instrument would set out that theory in greater detail. Prosecutors may rely on the order, proof that it was served or otherwise known to him, and testimony about his alleged actions at the residence.
The aggravated-family-offense count introduces a second legal layer. Under New York law, the charge generally applies when a person commits a listed family offense after a qualifying previous conviction during the period set by statute. It is a Class E felony. The public announcement did not identify the prior conviction that investigators or prosecutors believe supports the charge. It also did not state whether that earlier matter involved the same woman. State law does not always require the person in the current allegation to be the same person involved in the earlier offense. The prosecution will have to establish the necessary record through certified court documents or other admissible proof.
Together, the contempt and aggravated-family-offense counts suggest the new case will examine events that occurred before June 6, even though the attempted-murder allegation concerns a short confrontation that morning. The protection order had to arise from some earlier judicial action, and the aggravated-family charge ordinarily depends on a qualifying history. Authorities have not explained either background. They have not described the relationship between Demming and the woman, disclosed previous police calls or said why the protection order was requested. Those facts remain unknown, and the existence of the charges should not be treated as proof of an undisclosed pattern.
The most serious charge, second-degree attempted murder, will focus on alleged intent at the porch. State law defines criminal attempt as acting with the intent to commit a crime and engaging in conduct tending toward its commission. Attempted second-degree murder is treated as a Class B violent felony. Investigators said the sequence involved pouring gasoline on three people and trying to ignite it. Prosecutors would need to prove that Demming intended to cause death rather than merely frighten, threaten or injure. Evidence may include witness accounts, the lighter, fuel residue, statements, emergency calls and the location of the people when the alleged ignition attempt occurred.
Two counts of endangering the welfare of a child account separately for the woman’s children. Each is a Class A misdemeanor, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Officials have not released the children’s names or ages, and they have not described their positions on the porch. The children’s presence also may influence how the broader evidence is presented, because investigators said gasoline was poured directly onto them as well as the adult and home. Any interviews involving the children would typically be handled with attention to their ages and status as alleged victims. The public report does not say whether they provided statements.
Firefighters from the Varna Volunteer Fire Company assisted the woman and children with decontamination. The county did not report burns or other physical injuries, and it did not say that any of the three were hospitalized. No ignition means the allegations concern an interrupted act rather than a completed fire, but gasoline exposure still required an emergency response. Investigators did not release measurements of the fuel, photographs of damage or laboratory findings. Such evidence could help confirm where gasoline landed, whether it came from the container identified at the home and how close the scene came to ignition.
Deputies found Demming in the area shortly afterward and arrested him without incident. The Sheriff’s Office did not say whether officers recovered the lighter from his person, found gasoline on his clothing or obtained a statement from him. He was taken to the Tompkins County Jail and held pending an 8 p.m. centralized arraignment. That countywide process brings newly arrested defendants before a judge at scheduled sessions, where charges and rights are explained and counsel is provided or confirmed. A plea may be entered, and the judge considers release or detention conditions permitted by law.
After arraignment, Demming was returned to jail under an order setting $100,000 cash bail or $200,000 bond. The public announcement did not identify his attorney or state the plea entered. It also did not say whether the arraigning judge issued another protection order for the woman and children. Courts often consider new restrictions in cases alleging violence or prohibited contact, but no additional order should be assumed without a court record. The status of the original order also remains unclear, including whether it continues independently of any conditions imposed in the new case.
The next procedural steps depend on the court and prosecution. Felony allegations may move through a preliminary stage before prosecutors seek a grand-jury indictment. A grand jury does not decide guilt; it determines whether legally sufficient evidence supports charges for further prosecution. Defense counsel may seek records, examine the basis for the arrest, challenge statements or physical evidence and ask a judge to review bail. The charges also could be amended as additional facts emerge. No public report has identified a scheduled hearing, grand-jury action or plea negotiation.
The case leaves several records especially important: the original order of protection, proof that Demming knew its terms, any qualifying conviction alleged for the aggravated-family offense, and evidence documenting the porch confrontation. Those materials will determine whether prosecutors can connect the earlier judicial restrictions to the new allegations. Until they are filed or presented in court, the official narrative remains an accusation from law enforcement, and Demming retains the presumption of innocence.
Demming remained held under the bail set at arraignment while the five charges awaited further court action. Authorities had not announced a next appearance or indictment. The next public filing may clarify both the earlier protection order and the legal theory connecting it to the alleged gasoline attack.
Author note: Last updated July 10, 2026.