Opinion
2013-07-17
In the Matter of Nurussabah ALAM, respondent, v. Mansooh ALAM, appellant.
Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, N.Y., for appellant.
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, 107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2d Dept. 2013];Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 [2d Dept. 2013];Matter of Kanterakis v. Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d 784, 785, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890;Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 101 A.D.3d 877, 878, 955 N.Y.S.2d 633). 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, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890;Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 101 A.D.3d at 878, 955 N.Y.S.2d 633;Matter of Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 755, 948 N.Y.S.2d 673). 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 [1], 240.26[1]; Matter of McCauley v. Galante, 106 A.D.3d 1089, 965 N.Y.S.2d 733;Matter of Harry v. Harry, 85 A.D.3d 790, 791, 924 N.Y.S.2d 816;Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895).