Opinion
Nos. 2006-10333, O-5955/05.
March 11, 2008.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated September 22, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and vacated a temporary order of protection against the respondent.
Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.
Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual determination to be resolved by the Family Court ( see Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842, 843; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d 675; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629). The Family Court's credibility determination is entitled to great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d at 843; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d at 675; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d at 629). The record supports the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committed an act constituting a family offense ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d at 842-843; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d at 675; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d at 629).