July 17, 2013
In the Matter of Nurussabah Alam, respondent,
Mansooh Alam, appellant. Docket No. O-22201-11
Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, N.Y., for appellant.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Mansooh Alam appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 18, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he had committed a family offense, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Nurussabah Alam until and including May 18, 2014.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a "fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Bazante v Bazante, __ A.D.3d __, 2013 NY Slip Op 03996 [2d Dept 2013]; Matter of Maiorino v Maiorino, __ A.D.3d __, 2013 NY Slip Op 04005 [2d Dept 2013]; Matter of Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d 784, 785; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 101 A.D.3d 877, 878). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Kanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d at 785; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 101 A.D.3d at 878; Matter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 755). Contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports a determination that he committed acts constituting certain family offenses, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law §§ 120.14, 240.26; Matter of McCauley v Galante, 106 A.D.3d 1089; Matter of Harry v Harry, 85 A.D.3d 790, 791; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178).
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.