Opinion
2013-10802, Docket No. O-26053-12.
04-01-2015
In the Matter of Mimma GIRESI–PALAZZOLO, appellant, v. Matteo PALAZZOLO, respondent.
Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Opinion Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anne–Marie Jolly, J.), dated October 16, 2013. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the mother's family offense petition against the father and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother filed a family offense petition alleging, inter alia, that the father had committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct. After conducting a hearing, the Family Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct. Act § 832 ; see Matter of Tulshi v. Tulshi, 118 A.D.3d 716, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Jarrett v. Jarrett, 102 A.D.3d 695, 956 N.Y.S.2d 898 ; Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's findings regarding the credibility of witnesses, unless clearly unsupported by the record, are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Tulshi v. Tulshi, 118 A.D.3d at 717, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 712, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87 ; Matter of Gray v. Gray, 55 A.D.3d 909, 867 N.Y.S.2d 110 ).
The Family Court's determination that the mother failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father committed the family offenses alleged in the petition, hinged on credibility, and the Family Court's assessment of the parties' credibility is supported by the record (see Matter of Tulshi v. Tulshi, 118 A.D.3d at 717, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Velazquez v. Haffey, 113 A.D.3d 783, 978 N.Y.S.2d 861 ; Matter of Khan v. Khan, 112 A.D.3d 829, 976 N.Y.S.2d 671 ). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err by admitting into evidence an audio recording of a conversation that took place between the parties on December 23, 2012. The father testified that he had personally recorded the conversation, that the recording was a complete and accurate reproduction of their interaction, and that the recording had not been altered. This testimony, which the Family Court credited, constituted sufficient proof of the accuracy and authenticity of the recording to warrant its admission (see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527–528, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 ; People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59–60, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 399 N.E.2d 1177 ; Matter of Hirsh v. Stern, 74 A.D.3d 967, 968, 902 N.Y.S.2d 655 ). Any infirmities concerning audibility went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d at 528, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 ; People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d at 60, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 399 N.E.2d 1177 ).