Opinion
2014-01570 (Docket No. O-13476-11)
03-11-2015
In the Matter of NGN DEEPTI, respondent, v. PARVEEN KAUSHIK, appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Karen G. Brand, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y., for respondent. Paul B. Guttenberg, Syosset, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Karen G. Brand, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y., for respondent.
Paul B. Guttenberg, Syosset, N.Y., attorney for the child.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated February 4, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding that Parveen Kaushik committed family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and the parties' child until and including February 3, 2016.
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 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing 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 Abatantuno v. Abatantuno, 119 A.D.3d 779, 779, 989 N.Y.S.2d 331 ; Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585 ). “In order to facilitate effective appellate review, however, the Family Court, which is the court best able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, must state in its decision the facts it deems essential to its determination” (Matter of Son v. Ramos, 117 A.D.3d 745, 746, 984 N.Y.S.2d 612 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Here, the Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemed essential to its determination to grant the petition for an order of protection (see CPLR 4213[b] ; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d 1024, 1025–1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059 ). However, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 N.Y.2d at 1026, 416 N.Y.S.2d 537, 389 N.E.2d 1059 ; Matter of Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 122 A.D.3d 864, 865, 996 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; Matter of Son v. Ramos, 117 A.D.3d at 746, 984 N.Y.S.2d 612 ). Upon our review, we conclude that a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the appellant committed the family offenses of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, and disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct. Act §§ 812[1], 832 ; Penal Law §§ 120.00, 120.15, 120.20, 240.26, 240.20 ).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.