| Matter of Sblendorio v D'Agostino |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01808 [60 AD3d 773] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Debby Sblendorio, Respondent, v PatD'Agostino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Yisroel Schulman, New York, N.Y. (Christina Brandt-Young of counsel), for respondent. Anthony J. Morisano, Staten Island, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Pat D'Agostinoappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), datedNovember 19, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding that he committedthe family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed him to stay away from thepetitioner and the parties' child for a period of two years.
Ordered that the order of protection is 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 Asgedom v Asgedom, 51 AD3d 787 [2008]; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d494, 495 [2006]; Matter ofLallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]). The Family Court's credibilitydetermination is entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842 [2007]; Matter of Pastore v Russo, 38 AD3d556, 557 [2007]; Matter of MeilingZhang v Jinghong Zhu, 36 AD3d 704 [2007]). Here, the fair preponderance of thecredible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's determinationthat in July 2004, the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree(see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Asgedom v Asgedom, 51 AD3d 787 [2008]). There is nomerit to the appellant's contention that he was prejudiced by the Family Court's failure to hold adispositional hearing before issuing a two-year order of protection. The appellant contends thathe was prevented from admitting a therapist's report [*2]and aprobation report for review by the court at disposition. On the facts of this case, the FamilyCourt's failure to hold a dispositional hearing does not require reversal (see Matter of Hassett v Hassett, 4AD3d 527 [2004]; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812, 813 [2002];Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W., 278 AD2d 177 [2000]; Matter of Quintana vQuintana, 237 AD2d 130 [1997]). In any event, upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower, we find that the Family Court's disposition awarding the petitioner and the parties' child atwo-year order of protection was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tyquan Y., 55 AD3d843 [2008]; Matter of Donta J.,35 AD3d 740 [2006]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Dillon andEng, JJ., concur.