| Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02846 [61 AD3d 489] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Everett C., Appellant, v Oneida P.,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about March 18,2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing in a proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of theFamily Court Act, dismissed the petition for an order of protection, unanimously affirmed,without costs.
To support a finding that a respondent has committed a family offense, a petitioner mustprove his allegations by a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Melissa Marie G. v JohnChristopher W., 57 AD3d 314 [2008]). A hearing court's determination is entitled togreat deference because it has the best vantage point for evaluating the credibility of thewitnesses, and its determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantialevidentiary basis (see Matter of Peter G.v Karleen K., 51 AD3d 541, 542 [2008]; Matter of Brittni K., 297 AD2d 236,237-238 [2002]).
Here, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner failed to establish by apreponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed acts warranting an order ofprotection in petitioner's favor, particularly in light of the court's finding that none of thetestimony was especially credible (see Peter G., 51 AD3d at 542; Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d755 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no indication that the court failed toapply the proper standard in making its determination. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman,Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.