Matter of King v Flowers
2004 NYSlipOp 09639
December 27, 2004
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 23, 2005


In the Matter of Eva M. King, Appellant,
v
Ramel Flowers, Respondent.

[*1]In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated February 5, 2004, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition for an order of protection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition upon finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). The determination whether the respondent committed such acts was a disputed factual issue for the Family Court to resolve. As the trier of fact, its determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Bongiorno v Bongiorno, 1 AD3d 511 [2003]), and we find no basis to disturb its determination. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.