| Matter of Hall v Hall |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09394 [45 AD3d 842] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Naomi A. Hall, Appellant, v Haveluck N.Hall, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appealsfrom an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.H.O.), dated October 6,2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the commission ofa family offense by the respondent warranting the issuance of an order of protection (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter ofPatton v Torres, 38 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]).
"The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the Family Court" (Matterof Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]; see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d803 [2006]; Matter of Kraus vKraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]), and the Family Court's determination regardingwitness credibility is entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Meiling Zhang v Jinghong Zhu, 36 AD3d 704 [2007];Matter of Jeannie B. v Roger D., 33AD3d 994 [2006]; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d at 495; Matter of De La Cruz v Colon, 16AD3d 496 [2005]; Matter ofWissink v Wissink, 13 AD3d 461, 462 [2004]).
The petition was filed following an alleged verbal altercation in April 2006. To the extent thepetitioner relied on evidence of a physical altercation in December 2002, that event was notcontemporaneous to the 2006 petition (see Matter of Ann P. v Nicholas C.P., 44 AD3d 776 [2007]; cf. Matter of Ashley P., 31 AD3d767, 769 [2006]). For that reason, and [*2]because therequest was made four months after the filing of the petition and five weeks after the case hadbeen marked final (see Matter ofSicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651 [2006]; cf. Matter of Vidal v Mintzer, 309AD2d 756, 758 [2003]; Matter ofCzaban v Czaban, 24 AD3d 547 [2005]), the Family Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for an adjournment (see FamilyCt Act § 533; Matter of Sicurellav Embro, 31 AD3d 651 [2006]), so she could procure photographs of her appearancefollowing the alleged December 2002 altercation. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ.,concur.