| Matter of Halper v Halper |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02787 [61 AD3d 687] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Janet Halper, Respondent, v Jason Halper,Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew Moulinos, Astoria, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jason Halper appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.H.O.), dated June 9, 2008, which,after a hearing, found that he committed a family offense and granted an order of protection tothe petitioner.
Ordered that the order 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" (Matterof Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562, 562 [2005]; see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d803 [2006]), and when the Family Court is confronted with issues of credibility, its findingsare accorded great weight on appeal (see Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]; Matter of Wissink v Wissink, 13AD3d 461, 462 [2004]; Matter ofSt. Denis v St. Denis, 1 AD3d 370 [2003]). The record presented here is adequate topermit a meaningful review of the Family Court's determination (see Matter of Steven Glenn R., 51AD3d 802 [2008]). Upon such review, we find that the petitioner established, by apreponderance of the evidence (seeMatter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529 [2004]), that the appellant committed actsconstituting harassment in the second degree, thus warranting the issuance of an order ofprotection, and we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination (see FamilyCt Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Wissink v Wissink, 13 AD3d 461 [2004]). Spolzino,J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Dickerson, JJ., concur.