| Matter of Bibolova v Radu |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02662 [82 AD3d 1222] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Karina Bibolova, Respondent, v AndreiRadu, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lance Kramer, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from (1)an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), datedFebruary 3, 2010, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant had committed the familyoffense of harassment in the second degree and directed him to comply with the conditions setforth in an order of protection dated February 3, 2010, for a period not to exceed 12 months, and(2) the order of protection of the same court dated February 3, 2010, which, inter alia, directedhim to stay away from the petitioner, her residence, and their son, subject to court-orderedvisitation, for a period up to and including February 2, 2011.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection, and the appeal from so much of theorder of fact-finding and disposition as directed the appellant to observe the conditions ofbehavior specified in the order of protection for a period not to exceed 12 months, are dismissedas academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The appeal from the order of protection, and the appeal from so much of the order offact-finding and disposition as directed the appellant to observe the conditions of behaviorspecified in the order of protection for a period not to exceed 12 months, have been renderedacademic by the passing of the time limits contained therein (see Matter of Zieran vMarvin, 2 AD3d 870, 871-872 [2003]). Nevertheless, even though the order of protectionhas expired, "in light of the enduring consequences which may flow from an adjudication that aparty has committed a family offense," the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding anddisposition as made that adjudication is not academic (Matter of Pastore v Russo, 38AD3d 556, 556 [2007]; see Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387, 387-388[2006]; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 AD3d 874, 875 [2005]; Matter of Zieran vMarvin, 2 AD3d at 871-872).
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 [*2]entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearlyunsupported by the record (see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]).Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supporteda finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree(see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Gonzalez v Acosta, 73 AD3d 921,921-922 [2010]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]; Matter of Wissinkv Wissink, 13 AD3d 461 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.