From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Tracey Scioscia v. Scioscia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-1

In the Matter of Tracey SCIOSCIA, respondent,v.Dante SCIOSCIA, appellant.


Gina M. Scelta, Centerport, N.Y., for appellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated July 19, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing and upon a finding that he had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the wife and her residence until and including July 19, 2011.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 19, 2011, the appeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense ( see Matter of Willis v. Rhinehart, 76 A.D.3d 641, 642, 906 N.Y.S.2d 335; Matter of Wallace v. Wallace, 45 A.D.3d 599, 844 N.Y.S.2d 711; Matter of DeSouza–Brown v. Brown, 38 A.D.3d 888, 831 N.Y.S.2d 332).

“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 unless clearly unsupported by the record” ( Matter of Bibolova v. Radu, 82 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 919 N.Y.S.2d 388; see Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( see Matter of Williams v. Maise, 85 A.D.3d 933, 934, 925 N.Y.S.2d 839; Matter of Yalvac v. Yalvac, 83 A.D.3d 853, 854, 920 N.Y.S.2d 689; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Tracey Scioscia v. Scioscia

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In the Matter of Tracey Scioscia v. Scioscia

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Tracey SCIOSCIA, respondent,v.Dante SCIOSCIA, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7848
931 N.Y.S.2d 892

Citing Cases

Hohn v. Guirand

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although the order of…

Samida v. Samida

ORDERED that the order and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although the…