| Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04382 [73 AD3d 1052] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Steven Ciccone, Respondent, v DebbieCiccone, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Debbie Cicconeappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County(Cammer, J.H.O.), dated April 29, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that she committed thefamily offense of stalking in the fourth degree, and directed her to observe the conditions of anorder of protection, also dated April 29, 2009, for a period of two years.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
" '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, 562 [2005]; see Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d803 [2006]; Matter of Kraus vKraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495 [2006]), and where the Family Court is confronted withissues of credibility, its findings are accorded great weight on appeal (see Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d419, 420 [2006]; Matter of Wissinkv Wissink, 13 AD3d 461, 462 [2004]; Matter of St. Denis v St. Denis, 1 AD3d 370 [2003])" (Matter of Pastore v Russo, 38 AD3d556, 557 [2007]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properlydetermined that the petitioner established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that theappellant committed acts constituting the family offense of stalking in the fourth degree(see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Penal Law § 120.45 [2]).
Additionally, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant'smotion for an adjournment. "The grant or denial of a motion for 'an adjournment for any purposeis a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court' " (Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888,889 [2006], quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]). In making such adetermination, a court must " 'undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors' " (Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d826, 827 [2008], quoting Matter ofSicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651 [2006]). Here, the appellant's counsel at the FamilyCourt failed to demonstrate that the evidence she sought to obtain was relevant or that the needfor an adjournment was not the result of the lack of due diligence on her, or her client's, part.Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d888, 889 [2006]; Diamond vDiamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d 555 [2007]; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.