| Matter of Asgedom v Asgedom |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04512 [51 AD3d 787] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Rita Aregay Asgedom,Respondent, v Abraham Aregay Asgedom, Appellant. |
—[*1] Marva A. Prescod, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Abraham AregayAsgedom appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), datedNovember 8, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that he had committed the family offense ofharassment, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 29, 2007, which denied his motionto restore the proceeding to the calendar.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the Family Court (seeMatter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]; Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]).The Family Court's credibility determination is entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d842 [2007]; Matter of Pastore vRusso, 38 AD3d 556, 557 [2007]; Matter of Meiling Zhang v Jinghong Zhu, 36 AD3d 704 [2007]).Here, the fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingsupported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense ofharassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d763, 763-764 [2007]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providentlyexercised its discretion in making its determination without conducting an in camera interview ofthe parties' infant child (see Matter of Cardarelli v Cardarelli, 277 AD2d 225, 225-226[2000]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy andChambers, JJ., concur.