| Matter of Armstrong v Ewing |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02383 [82 AD3d 1092] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joyce Armstrong, Respondent, v ChristinE. Ewing, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Christin E. Ewingappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), datedJanuary 13, 2010, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he had committed a familyoffense, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including January 13,2012.
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 hearing court" (Matter ofCreighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]; see Matter of Greener v Greener, 77 AD3d 664 [2010]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d1178 [2010]), and where that court is presented with issues of credibility, its findings areaccorded great weight on appeal (seeMatter of Greener v Greener, 77 AD3d 664 [2010]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 73 AD3d1052 [2010]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credibleevidence supported the Family Court's determination that he committed acts which constitutedthe family offense of menacing in the third degree, warranting the issuance of an order ofprotection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Penal Law § 120.15; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d1178 [2010]; Matter of Gray vGray, 55 AD3d 909, 910 [2008]; Matter of Sinclair v Batista-Mall, 50 AD3d 1044 [2008]; see also Matter of Monay W., 33 AD3d809, 810 [2006]). Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.