Opinion
11663 Dkt. O-13953/18
06-18-2020
In re SKARLITH G., Petitioner–Appellant, v. GUELVIS J.C., Respondent–Respondent.
Beth E. Goldman, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Rachel Lieb of counsel), for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent. Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), attorney for the child.
Beth E. Goldman, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Rachel Lieb of counsel), for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), attorney for the child.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about October 26, 2018, which, after a trial, dismissed the family offense petition with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's argument that the court demonstrated bias against her is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Bowe v. Bowe, 124 A.D.3d 645, 646, 1 N.Y.S.3d 301 [2d Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Kimberly Z. [Jason Z.], 88 A.D.3d 1181, 1184, 931 N.Y.S.2d 732 [3d Dept. 2011] ). In any event, the argument is unavailing. The record shows that the court listened to the testimony, treated the parties fairly, and did not have a predetermined outcome in mind during the hearing (see Matter of Bowe, 124 A.D.3d at 646, 1 N.Y.S.3d 301 ; Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 A.D.3d 893, 894, 35 N.Y.S.3d 129 [2d Dept. 2016] ). Among other things, petitioner's arguments about the court's nonrenewal of the temporary order of protection are speculative.
The dismissal of the petition has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts that warranted an order of protection, in light of the court's finding that most of her testimony was not credible; petitioner offers no basis for disturbing this finding, which is entitled to great deference on appeal (see Matter of Everett C. v. Oneida P., 61 A.D.3d 489, 878 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept. 2009] ; Matter of Barnes v. Barnes, 54 A.D.3d 755, 863 N.Y.S.2d 758 [1st Dept. 2008] ). The court correctly rejected the claim of disorderly conduct because the testimony did not establish the element of intent to cause a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm (see Penal Law § 240.20 ).
The court's decision amply states the facts that the court deemed essential to the decision (see CPLR 4213[b] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.