Opinion
2014-05-14
In the Matter of Sophia Rock STREAT, appellant, v. Anthony STREAT, respondent.
Caitlin Donahue, Fresh Meadows, N.Y., for appellant. Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.
Caitlin Donahue, Fresh Meadows, N.Y., for appellant. Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated April 15, 2013, which, after a hearing, deniedthe petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537, quoting Family Ct. Act § 832; see Matter of Testa v. Strickland, 99 A.D.3d 917, 917, 951 N.Y.S.2d 910). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895, quoting Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Yalvac v. Yalvac, 83 A.D.3d 853, 854, 920 N.Y.S.2d 689;Matter of Halper v. Halper, 61 A.D.3d 687, 875 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Lallmohamed v. Lallmohamed, 23 A.D.3d 562, 806 N.Y.S.2d 622), “whose ‘determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” (Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d at 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895, quoting Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d at 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;see Matter of Yalvac v. Yalvac, 83 A.D.3d at 854, 920 N.Y.S.2d 689;Matter of Robbins v. Robbins, 48 A.D.3d 822, 822, 851 N.Y.S.2d 877;Matter of Phillips v. Laland, 4 A.D.3d 529, 530, 771 N.Y.S.2d 718).
Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree. The Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish that a family offense was committed against her was based on its credibility assessments, and is supported by the record ( see Matter of Alonso v. Perdue, 112 A.D.3d 920, 920, 976 N.Y.S.2d 891;Matter of Amato v. Amato, 100 A.D.3d 988, 989, 954 N.Y.S.2d 464;Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226;Matter of DosReis v. Rousseau, 85 A.D.3d 1028, 1028, 925 N.Y.S.2d 848, 849;Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d 689, 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.