| Matter of Gonzalez v Acosta |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04190 [73 AD3d 921] |
| May 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Rosita Gonzalez,Respondent, v Emmanuel Acosta, Appellant. |
—[*1] Mark Brandys, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Emmanuel Acostaappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated May12, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding, in effect, that he committed thefamily offense of harassment, inter alia, directed that he stay 100 yards away from RositaGonzalez for a period of two years.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingsupported the Family Court's finding, in effect, that the appellant committed acts constituting thefamily offense of harassment in the second degree, thus warranting the issuance of an order ofprotection (see Matter of Halper vHalper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]; Matter of Sblendorio v D'Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]). Theappellant challenges the credibility of the petitioner's testimony that he committed the actsalleged in the petition. The Family Court's credibility determination is entitled to great weightand we find no reason to disturb that determination (see Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529 [2004]). Moreover,the provision in the order of protection requiring the appellant to stay away from the churchwhich the petitioner attends was reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection and toend the family disruption (see Family Ct Act § 812 [2] [b]; § 842;Matter of Mitchell v Muhammed, 275 AD2d 783 [2000]; Matter of Amy Cohen L. vHoward N.L., 222 AD2d 677 [1995]).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, under the facts of this case, the Family Court's failureto hold a dispositional hearing does not require reversal (see Matter of Hassett v Hassett, 4 AD3d 527 [2004]; Matter ofDabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812, 812-813 [2002]; cf. Matter of Alice C. v JosephC., 212 AD2d 698 [1995]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller andAustin, JJ., concur.