March 19, 2014
In the Matter of Bernard Harry, respondent,
Sandy Harry, appellant. Docket No. O-33764/11
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that she committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and directed her to comply with the terms of an order of protection of the same court dated September 14, 2012.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding an disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the allegations contained in the petition by a "fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 A.D.3d 917; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 72 A.D.3d 834, 835). 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 unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Kondor v Kondor, 109 A.D.3d 660; Matter of Shields v Brown, 107 A.D.3d 1005, 1006; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26; Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Hodiantov v Aronov, 110 A.D.3d 881, 882; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 A.D.3d 473, 474; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 1008; Matter of Draxler v Davis, 11 A.D.3d 760).
SKELOS, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.