A witness stopped the confrontation before the gasoline could be ignited, authorities said.

DRYDEN, N.Y. — A Dryden man faces an attempted-murder charge after authorities said he poured gasoline over a woman, her two children and their home during a June 6 confrontation, then tried to ignite the fuel before a witness stopped him.

Matthew J. Demming, 53, was arrested near the Schwan Drive residence shortly after the reported attack, according to the Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies charged him with second-degree attempted murder, first-degree criminal contempt, aggravated family offense and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The woman and children were decontaminated by firefighters and were not reported physically injured. Demming remained in county custody after a judge set cash or bond bail.

The confrontation began at about 10:18 a.m. when deputies and New York State Police were sent to a reported dispute at the home. As officers traveled to Schwan Drive, witnesses told emergency dispatchers that a white man had poured gasoline on a residence and left the scene. Investigators said Demming had arrived despite a court-issued order of protection restricting his contact with the woman. A verbal argument followed on the front porch while her two children were present. Deputies said Demming then took a gasoline can from beside the house and poured its contents on the woman, the children and parts of the residence. The account released by the Sheriff’s Office did not say how long the argument lasted or what words passed between the adults before the gasoline was poured.

Authorities said the danger increased when Demming produced a lighter and tried to ignite the gasoline. A witness stepped into the confrontation and “physically removed him,” the Sheriff’s Office said. Officials have not identified that person or described the precise movements that prevented ignition. They also have not said whether the lighter produced a flame, whether any gasoline reached the interior of the home or how much fuel was spilled. No fire was reported. The woman and children remained at the scene long enough for emergency crews to treat the contamination risk. Their names and the children’s ages were withheld. Investigators have not publicly described the relationship between Demming and the woman, beyond filing charges associated with an alleged violation of a protection order and an aggravated family offense.

Deputies found Demming nearby a short time later and arrested him without further confrontation, according to the official account. The release did not specify how far he had gone, whether officers recovered the lighter from him or where the gasoline container was found. Investigators also did not report finding another weapon. The arrest ended the immediate search, but it marked the beginning of a criminal case that will require prosecutors to establish what Demming intended and what actions he allegedly took toward completing the offense. Under New York law, criminal attempt requires evidence that a person intended to commit a crime and engaged in conduct tending toward its commission. The attempted-murder accusation therefore centers on the claim that Demming poured an accelerant over three people and tried to ignite it.

The Varna Volunteer Fire Company responded after law enforcement secured the scene. Firefighters helped remove gasoline from the woman and children, a step intended to reduce continued exposure and eliminate the danger posed by fuel on skin or clothing. Officials did not report burns, smoke inhalation or other physical injuries, and the county statement did not say whether any of the three were taken to a hospital. It also did not describe damage to the porch or exterior of the house. Even without ignition, the alleged spill required a fire-service response because gasoline gives off highly flammable vapor and can spread across surfaces. The official account credits the witness’s intervention with stopping the sequence before a spark or flame reached the fuel. Authorities have not announced whether environmental cleanup or additional inspection of the property was needed afterward.

The protection order forms a separate part of the case. Deputies said Demming was barred by a court order from appearing at or contacting the woman, although they have not released the order, identified the court that issued it or explained when it took effect. First-degree criminal contempt can apply when a person knowingly violates a valid protection order while using threats, physical contact or menacing conduct that places the protected person in fear of injury or death. The charge does not by itself prove the underlying allegation. Prosecutors must establish the existence and terms of the order, Demming’s knowledge of it and conduct that met the statute. Court records available through the initial public reports did not explain whether the order resulted from a criminal case, a family proceeding or another dispute.

The aggravated-family-offense charge also points to circumstances beyond the few minutes described on the porch. New York law classifies aggravated family offense as a Class E felony and generally connects it to a qualifying family offense committed after a previous qualifying conviction within the period defined by law. The Sheriff’s Office did not identify any earlier conviction in its public announcement, and it did not state which prior record prosecutors intend to use. That history would normally be addressed through court filings and evidence rather than established by an arrest statement. The lack of public detail leaves important questions unresolved, including the nature of the earlier conflict, the exact relationship between the adults and whether police had responded to the property before June 6.

Demming was taken to the Tompkins County Jail and held for an 8 p.m. appearance through the county’s centralized arraignment program. At arraignment, a defendant is formally told the charges, advised of key rights and represented by counsel before entering a plea. A judge then decides release conditions allowed under state law. Following Demming’s arraignment, the court ordered bail in the amount of $100,000 cash or $200,000 bond, according to the Sheriff’s Office. He was returned to jail. The county announcement did not identify his lawyer, record his plea or list his next court date. It also did not say whether the judge issued a new protection order or continued the restrictions already in place.

Second-degree attempted murder is the most serious accusation in the case and is classified as a Class B violent felony under New York law. The two child-endangerment counts are Class A misdemeanors, one connected to each child, while first-degree criminal contempt and aggravated family offense are Class E felonies. The filing of five counts allows prosecutors to address different parts of the alleged conduct, including the claimed intent to kill, the presence of the children and the asserted violation of the existing order. Those counts can change as prosecutors review statements, physical evidence, emergency recordings and any available video. A felony case may later be presented to a grand jury, resolved through a plea or proceed toward hearings and trial.

The public account so far comes mainly from investigators and has not been tested in court. Authorities have not released body-camera video, photographs of the porch, recordings of the emergency calls or statements attributed directly to the woman, children or witness. No defense account of the confrontation had been made public in the reports surrounding the arrest. The absence of a fire and reported physical injuries does not end the attempted-murder inquiry because the charge concerns alleged intent and conduct rather than a completed death. It does, however, mean the case will turn heavily on testimony, the condition of the scene and evidence showing what happened immediately before the witness intervened.

The porch remained the central location in investigators’ description: a morning argument, a gasoline can kept near the residence, three people allegedly covered in fuel and a lighter introduced before another person stepped between them. The Sheriff’s Office has not said whether that witness lived at the home, was visiting or approached after seeing the dispute. Officials also have not described what the children saw or heard. Their identities are being kept private, consistent with their status as minors and alleged victims. The woman’s identity also has not been released. Public records may remain limited while prosecutors protect witnesses and evaluate whether further charges or court restrictions are needed.

No later hearing date, indictment or case resolution had been announced in the available public reports. Demming remained charged on the five announced counts, with bail set after his centralized arraignment. The next formal milestone will come when the case returns to court or prosecutors disclose whether they are pursuing the felony accusations before a grand jury.

Author note: Last updated July 10, 2026.