Matter of Medranda v Mondelli
2010 NY Slip Op 05005 [74 AD3d 972]
June 8, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


In the Matter of Jane Medranda, Respondent,
v
DinoMondelli, Appellant.

[*1]Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, N.Y., for appellant.

Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for respondent.

Jessica Bacal, Katonah, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Dino Mondelliappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), dated July22, 2009, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense ofdisorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner for a period of twoyears, except while picking up or dropping off the parties' daughter for visitation.

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

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility ofwitnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearlyunsupported by the record (see Matterof Penn v Johnson, 73 AD3d 784 [ 2010]; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]; Matter of Holder v Francis, 67 AD3d679 [2009]; Matter of Sblendorio vD'Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]).Here, the fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingsupported the Family Court's finding (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law§ 240.20 [1]; Matter of Penn vJohnson, 73 AD3d 784 [2010]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection directing the appellant,inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner for a period of two years, except while picking up ordropping off the parties' daughter for visitation (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1];Matter of Braham v Braham, 264 AD2d 418 [1999]; Matter of Quintana vQuintana, 237 AD2d 130 [1997]; Matter of Amy Cohen L. v Howard N.L., 222AD2d 677 [1995]). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Roman, 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.