| Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00506 [47 AD3d 823] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Anita Wilkins, Respondent, v RohanWilkins, Appellant. |
—[*1] Yisroel Schulman, New York, N.Y. (Christina Brandt-Young of counsel), for respondent. Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), LawGuardian.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, which was transferredto the Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Supreme Court (see 22 NYCRR 141.4),the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Morgenstern, J.), dated January 31, 2007, as, after a fact-findingand dispositional hearing, found that he violated an order of protection of the same court datedFebruary 22, 2005, and directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the wife for a period of fiveyears.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Where issues of credibility are presented, the factual determinations of a hearing court areafforded great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if warranted by the record (see Matter of Spillman v Spillman, 40AD3d 770 [2007]; McKiernan v McKiernan, 274 AD2d 560 [2000]; seegenerally Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492,499 [1983]).
The record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the husband violated an order ofprotection by going to the home of a mutual acquaintance of the parties, and looking for the wife[*2]while armed with an unsheathed machete only two days afterbeing denied visitation with the parties' son (cf. Matter of Sarmuksnis v Priest, 21 AD3d 381 [2005]; Matterof Louvaris v Louvaris, 209 AD2d 524 [1994]; Matter of Lentino v Lentino, 185AD2d 849 [1992]).
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.