NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
April 14, 2009
IN RE EVERETT C., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
ONEIDA P., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
To support a finding that a respondent has committed a family offense, a petitioner must prove his allegations by a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Court Act § 832; Melissa Marie G. v John Christopher W., 57 AD3d 314 ). A hearing court's determination is entitled to great deference because it has the best vantage point for evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, and its determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis (see Peter G. v Karleen K., 51 AD3d 541, 542 ; In re Brittni K., 297 AD2d 236, 237-238 ).
Here, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed acts warranting an order of protection in petitioner's favor, particularly in light of the court's finding that none of the testimony was especially credible (see Peter G., 51 AD3d at 542; Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755 ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no indication that the court failed to apply the proper standard in making its determination.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.