| Matter of Penn v Johnson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03939 [73 AD3d 784] |
| May 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tyrie Penn, Respondent , v Jeffrey CalvinJohnson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jeffrey CalvinJohnson appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Ross, J.H.O.), dated April 30, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that he committed thefamily offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, and directed him toobserve the conditions set forth in an order of protection of the same court also dated April 30,2009, up to and including April 29, 2010, and (2) the order of protection dated April 30, 2009.
Ordered that the appeals from the order of protection and so much of the order offact-finding and disposition as directed the appellant to observe the conditions set forth in theorder of protection up to and including April 29, 2010, are dismissed as academic, without costsor disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed,without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order of protection and the dispositional portion of the order offact-finding and disposition have been rendered academic by the expiration of the time limitscontained therein (see Matter of Hunt vHunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]; Matter of Mazzola v Mazzola, 280 AD2d 674[2001]).
"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 [2005]), and its credibilitydeterminations are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]; Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d419, 420 [2006]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, there was legally sufficientevidence that he committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment in the seconddegree and disorderly conduct, and those offenses were also proved by a preponderance of theevidence (see Family Ct Act § 832; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.26 [1];Matter of Nusbaum v Nusbaum, 59AD3d 725 [2009]; People vKearns, 56 AD3d 1047 [2008]; People v Collins, 178 AD2d 789 [1991]).Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.