| Matter of Hunt v Hunt |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04699 [51 AD3d 924] |
| May 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christine Hunt, Respondent, v Jeffrey J.Hunt, Appellant. |
—[*1] Caruso, Caruso & Branda, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Bernadette M. Davidson of counsel), forrespondent. Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from (1)a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), dated April 19, 2007,which, after a hearing, found that the appellant had committed the family offenses of harassmentin the second degree and disorderly conduct, (2) an order of protection of the same court datedApril 19, 2007, which, inter alia, directed him to stay away from the petitioner and the parties'child for a period up to and including April 18, 2008, and (3) an order of disposition of the samecourt dated April 19, 2007, which directed him to comply with the order of protection.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as it was superseded by the order of disposition (see Matter of Nichole B.,175 AD2d 205 [1991]); and it is further,[*2]
Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection, andthe appeal from so much of the order of disposition as directed the father to comply with theconditions of the order of protection, are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The appeal from the order of protection dated April 19, 2007, and the appeal from so muchof the order of disposition dated April 19, 2007, as directed the appellant to comply with theconditions of the order of protection, have been rendered academic by the passing of the timelimits contained therein (see Matter ofZieran v Marvin, 2 AD3d 870, 871-872 [2003]). Nevertheless, even though the order ofprotection has expired, "in light of enduring consequences which may potentially flow from anadjudication that a party has committed a family offense," the appeal from so much of the orderof disposition as made that adjudication is not academic (Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone,225 AD2d 767, 768 [1996]; see Matter of Zieran v Marvin, 2 AD3d at 872).
A family offense must be established by a "fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family CtAct § 832). The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses mustbe given great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48AD3d 822 [2008]). The record supports the Family Court's finding that based on apreponderance of the credible evidence, the appellant committed acts constituting the familyoffenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance ofan order of protection (see Penal Law § 240.20 [1], [2]; § 240.26 [1]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin andChambers, JJ., concur.