Opinion
8624
03-07-2019
In re GHASSEM T., Petitioner–Respondent, v. KEVIN T., Respondent–Appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Kahn, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2017, which, after a hearing, found that respondent son committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and issued a one year order of protection in favor of petitioner father, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding that respondent committed acts constituting criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
A fair preponderance of the evidence established that respondent committed acts which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; McGuffog v. Ginsberg , 266 A.D.2d 136, 699 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 1999] ; Family Ct Act § 832 ). There exists no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Peter G. v. Karleen K. , 51 A.D.3d 541, 856 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept. 2008] ).
The evidence, however, failed to support a finding that respondent committed acts constituting criminal mischief in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 145.00[1] ). The property respondent allegedly damaged had been gifted to him by petitioner (see People v. Bertone , 16 A.D.3d 710, 711–712, 790 N.Y.S.2d 311 [3d Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 759, 801 N.Y.S.2d 253, 834 N.E.2d 1263 [2005] ).