Matter of Creighton v Whitmore
2010 NY Slip Op 02787 [71 AD3d 1141]
March 30, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


In the Matter of Cleopatra Creighton,Respondent,
v
Taveres Tramine Whitmore, Appellant.

[*1]Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Anna Stern, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Taveres TramineWhitmore appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman,J.H.O.), dated April 14, 2009, which, after a hearing, directed him, inter alia, to refrain fromassaulting, harassing, and menacing the petitioner.

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 hearing court (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter ofHalper v Halper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]; Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23AD3d 562 [2005]), and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses isentitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter ofGray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909 [2008]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599[2007]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, it is not incumbent upon the Family Court tospecify in the protective order the particular family offense he committed where it is clear fromthe allegations in the petition and the evidence adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Abbottv Burnes, 27 AD3d 555 [2006]; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613, 613-614[2000]). Here, the petitioner stated to the police and in her family offense petition that, inter alia,on January 12, 2009, the appellant committed acts of physical and verbal abuse whichconstituted the family offense of harassment, and a fair preponderance of the credible evidenceadduced at the fact-finding hearing supports a finding that the appellant committed that offense,warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1];Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822, 822-823 [2008]; Matter of Topper vTopper, 271 AD2d at 613-614). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.