| Matter of Shelly RR. v Frank SS. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03507 [72 AD3d 1426] |
| April 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Shelly RR., Respondent, v Frank SS.,Appellant. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Michael T. Snyder, Apalachin, for respondent. Mark H. Young, Law Guardian, Binghamton. William L. Koslosky, Law Guardian, Utica.
Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Charnetsky, J.), entered April 2, 2009in Broome County, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in fourproceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 6 and 8, for an order of protection.
The parties are the parents of four children (born in 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2002). Petitioner(hereinafter the mother) commenced the first of these proceedings alleging, among other things,that in late October 2008, respondent (hereinafter the father) committed a family offense whenhe punched their 14-year-old son in the eye. The father had been arrested and was in jail at thetime the petition was filed. Family Court (Pines, J.) issued a temporary order of protectiondirecting, among other things, that the father stay away from the mother, the children and thehome, and granted temporary custody to the mother. Thereafter, the father filed three separatepetitions seeking specific modifications to the temporary order. In the meantime, all proceedingswere transferred to Supreme Court, Broome County, Integrated Domestic Violence Part.Following a hearing addressing all pending matters, Supreme Court found that the father hadcommitted the family offense of harassment (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) andissued an [*2]order which, among other things, directs the fatherto attend a local domestic violence program, to submit to an alcohol abuse evaluation and tofollow all treatment recommendations, and grants the mother custody and the father supervisedparenting time with the children. The father appeals and we affirm.
The father's appeal is limited to challenging Supreme Court's finding that he committed afamily offense against his son, a determination that will be upheld if supported in the record by afair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Amy SS. v John SS., 68AD3d 1262, 1263 [2009]). According due deference to the court's credibilitydeterminations, we find ample record evidence to support that finding. After an argumentbetween the father and the mother, an altercation ensued between the father and the son in whichthe father punched the teenager in the eye causing a cut that was later treated at a local hospital.The father's conduct, at a minimum, constituted the family offense of harassment (seePenal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.