Matter of Thomas v Thomas
2010 NY Slip Op 03137 [72 AD3d 834]
April 13, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


In the Matter of Erwin Thomas, Appellant,
v
NeilaThomas, Respondent.

[*1]Mark Brandys, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Lisa Lewis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Erwin Thomasappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), datedFebruary 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, upon a finding that he committed the family offense ofharassment in the second degree, and upon a finding of aggravating circumstances, is in favor ofNeila Thomas and against him, directing him to stay away from Neila Thomas until February 4,2014.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter ofNelson-Waller v Waller, 60 AD3d 1068 [2009]). " 'The determination of whether afamily offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court' " (Matter of Nusbaum v Nusbaum, 59AD3d 725 [2009], quoting Matterof Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]). The Family Court's determinationregarding the credibility of witnesses must be given great weight on appeal (see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d924, 925 [2008]).

Here, the fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingsupported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense ofharassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Sblendorio v D'Agostino, 60AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter ofRobbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822 [2008]). Moreover, there was sufficient evidence tosupport the finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances (see Family Ct Act§ 827 [a] [vii]; Matter of Flascher v Flascher, 298 AD2d 393 [2002]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection to remain in effect untilFebruary 4, 2014 (see Family Ct Act § 842). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin andLeventhal, 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.