Opinion
2012-05-15
In the Matter of Lisa NETTLES, respondent, v. Shaomari FEARRINGTON, appellant.
Susan A. DeNatale, Mastic, N.Y., for appellant. Francine H. Moss, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent.
Susan A. DeNatale, Mastic, N.Y., for appellant. Francine H. Moss, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Shaomari Fearrington appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated May 24, 2011, which, after a hearing, and, in effect, upon a finding that he had committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, and harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including May 10, 2013.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal” ( Matter of Genzen v. Genzen, 74 A.D.3d 1196, 1196, 902 N.Y.S.2d 425). Here, the Family Court properly, in effect, found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, and harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of the order of protection ( see Family Ct. Act § 842; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.25, 240.26; Matter of Hunt v. Hunt, 51 A.D.3d 924, 925, 858 N.Y.S.2d 724; Matter of Bonsignore v. Bonsignore, 37 A.D.3d 602, 828 N.Y.S.2d 814; Matter of De La Cruz v. Colon, 16 A.D.3d 496, 790 N.Y.S.2d 608).
Since the Family Court did not find that the appellant committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, we need not reach the appellant's contention regarding that family offense.