October 9, 2013
In the Matter of Sitara Saleem, appellant,
Waqar Ahmed Chaudhry, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Waqar Ahmed Chaudhry, respondent,
Sitara Saleem, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Docket Nos. O-27636-10/10A, O-31224/11
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Helene Chowes, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that she committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and harassment in the second degree, granted the father's petition, directed the mother to refrain from, inter alia, harassing or menacing the father, and dismissed her petitions.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 712).
Here, the father established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment and harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 A.D.3d 803). The mother failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, either that the father committed a family offense or that he violated a temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2010. The Family Court's determinations turned on its assessment of the parties' credibility, and, since its assessment is supported by the record, they will not be disturbed (see Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43-44).
Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court's failure to conduct a dispositional hearing does not warrant reversal (see Matter of Hassett v Hassett, 4 A.D.3d 527; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 A.D.2d 812).
The mother's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.