Opinion
11-16-2016
In the Matter of Marlon QUINONES, respondent, v. Elizabeth PALMA, appellant.
Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Richard Giacoma, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent. Teresita Morales, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard Giacoma, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent.
Teresita Morales, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated June 1, 2015. The order, after a hearing, found that the mother committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the parties' children.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties have two children in common, who were born in February of 2012 and March of 2013, respectively. In 2013 a neglect proceeding was commenced against the mother, and in October of 2013 a fact-finding order was entered, on the mother's consent, finding that she had neglected the children. An order of disposition in that proceeding released the children to the custody of the father. In September of 2014, the father commenced this family offense proceeding against the mother, alleging that during a visit with the children she had committed, inter alia, the family offense of assault in the third degree against the children. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the mother had committed that family offense, and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the parties' children. The mother appeals.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 832 ; Matter of Blackett v. Blackett, 123 A.D.3d 923, 999 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; 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 Alleyne v. Ally, 130 A.D.3d 718, 11 N.Y.S.3d 879 ; Matter of Maiorino v. Maiorino, 107 A.D.3d at 717, 965 N.Y.S.2d 885 ). 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 Tumba v. Gharib, 127 A.D.3d 770, 771, 4 N.Y.S.3d 545 ; Matter of Campbell v. Campbell, 123 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 1 N.Y.S.3d 219 ).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported a finding that the mother committed the family offense of assault in the third degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct. Act §§ 812[1] ; 832; Penal Law §§ 10.00[9], 120.00 [2 ]; Matter of Stewart v. Lassiter, 103 A.D.3d 734, 734, 959 N.Y.S.2d 717 ; compare Matter of Boua TT. v. Quamy UU., 66 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 887 N.Y.S.2d 323, with Campbell v. Campbell, 123 A.D.3d at 1124, 1 N.Y.S.3d 219 ). Further, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing her to stay away from the parties' children and refrain from committing any family offenses against them for a period of two years (see generally Family Ct. Act § 842 ; Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149 ).
The remaining contentions of the father and the attorney for the children are without merit.