Opinion
11-23-2016
In the Matter of Catherine MORAN, respondent, v. Peter CROWLEY, appellant.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, NY, for appellant. Aiello & Cannick, Maspeth, NY (Jennifer Arditi of counsel), for respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, NY, for appellant.
Aiello & Cannick, Maspeth, NY (Jennifer Arditi of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals by Peter Crowley from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (John M. Hunt, J.), dated June 15, 2015, and (2) an order of protection of that court, also dated June 15, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after a fact-finding hearing, found that Peter Crowley committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and directed him to comply with the order of protection. The order of protection directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including June 14, 2017.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The allegations asserted in a petition in a family offense proceeding must be supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 832 ; Matter of Polizzi v. McCrea, 129 A.D.3d 733, 10 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; Matter of Charalambous v. Zohios, 125 A.D.3d 963, 1 N.Y.S.3d 862 ; Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Polizzi v. McCrea, 129 A.D.3d at 733, 10 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d at 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 ; Matter of Kanterakis v. Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d 784, 785, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). The court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 ). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court's determination that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Family Ct. Act § 832 ; Penal Law § 240.26[1] ; Matter of Polizzi v. McCrea, 129 A.D.3d 733, 10 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; Matter of Silva v. Silva, 125 A.D.3d 869, 1 N.Y.S.3d 848 ; Matter of Messana v. Messana, 115 A.D.3d 860, 982 N.Y.S.2d 346 ).