| Matter of Wallace v Wallace |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08467 [45 AD3d 599] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jeanette Wallace, Respondent, v Kelly A.Wallace, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kelly A. Wallaceappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), datedOctober 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, and upon, in effect, a finding that she committed thefamily offense of harassment in the second degree, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from thehome of the petitioner Jeanette Wallace and to refrain from assault, stalking, harassment,menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, intimidation, threats, or any criminaloffense against Jeanette Wallace, up to and including October 16, 2007.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on October 16, 2007, the appealhas not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentiallyflow from a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see e.g. Matter of DeSouza-Brown vBrown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]; Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387, 388 [2006]; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 AD3d874, 875 [2005]).
The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to greatweight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004];Matter of Bryan S., 286 AD2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Tibichrani v Debs, 230AD2d 746, 747 [1996]). The record supports the Family Court, in effect, finding that, based on apreponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed an act constituting the familyoffense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection(see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 8 AD3d375 [2004]; Matter of Dienes v Dienes, [*2]240AD2d 576 [1997]; Matter of Pesce v Pesce, 223 AD2d 647 [1996]; Matter of Rogersv Rogers, 161 AD2d 766, 767 [1990]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson andBalkin, JJ., concur.