Opinion
2018–02946 Docket No. O–1311–17
01-09-2019
In the Matter of Noelia BARBOSA, Respondent, v. Jose MATIAS, Appellant.
Adelola Sheralynn Dow, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
Adelola Sheralynn Dow, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alexandra Byun, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 6, 2018. The order, after a hearing, and upon a finding that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the wife until and including February 5, 2019.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The wife filed a family offense petition in the Family Court against her husband. The wife alleged, among other things, that the husband had committed family offenses against her, and she sought an order of protection against him. Following a fact-finding hearing, the court determined that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against the wife. The court issued an order of protection, inter alia, directing the husband to stay away from the wife for a period of one year.
"A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence" ( Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d 717, 718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; see Family Ct Act § 832 ). "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 if supported by the record" ( Matter of Konstatine v. Konstatine, 107 A.D.3d 994, 994, 968 N.Y.S.2d 166 ).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported a finding that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree against the wife (see Penal Law § 240.26[2], [3] ; Family Ct Act § 812[1] ; Matter of Washington v. Washington, 158 A.D.3d at 717–718, 70 N.Y.S.3d 560 ; Matter of Pierre v. Dal, 142 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 37 N.Y.S.3d 317 ). Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the husband to stay away from the wife for a period of one year (see generally Family Ct Act § 842 ; Matter of Torres v. Matos, 163 A.D.3d 583, 76 N.Y.S.3d 414 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MILLER, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.