Opinion
2014-05843, (Docket No. O-3010-13)
2015-05-06
In the Matter of Marie LANG, respondent, v. Damion DOLPHY, appellant.
Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Dickerson and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Arleen Lewis, Blauvelt, N.Y., for appellant.
Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Dean Richardson–Mendelson, Ct.Atty.Ref.), entered May 5, 2014. The order of protection, upon a finding, after a hearing, that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner through May 5, 2016.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The issue of whether a family offense has been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832) is addressed to the hearing court, and its 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 Deepti v. Kaushik, 126 A.D.3d 790, 5 N.Y.S.3d 299; Matter of Campbell v. Campbell, 123 A.D.3d 1123, 1 N.Y.S.3d 219; Matter of Garbarino v. Garbarino, 120 A.D.3d 578, 990 N.Y.S.2d 853). Contrary to the appellant's contention, ample evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the Family Court's determination that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( see Matter of Silva v. Silva, 125 A.D.3d 869, 1 N.Y.S.3d 848; Matter of Monos v. Monos, 123 A.D.3d 931, 999 N.Y.S.2d 131; Matter of Hunt v. Hunt, 51 A.D.3d 924, 858 N.Y.S.2d 724). While the court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject incidents, we discern no basis to disturb its determination to credit the testimony of the petitioner ( see Matter of Musheyev v. Musheyev, 126 A.D.3d 800, 2 N.Y.S.3d 807; see generally Matter of Hon v. Tin Yat Chin, 117 A.D.3d 946, 985 N.Y.S.2d 904; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.