| Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03077 [83 AD3d 853] |
| April 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Susan Yalvac, Respondent, v Deniz A.Yalvac, Appellant. |
—[*1] Louis S. Sroka, Jericho, N.Y., for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson,N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appealsfrom an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated April 21,2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the familyoffense of harassment in the second degree, inter alia, directed him to refrain fromcommunicating with the wife except with regard to matters concerning the health, welfare,education, and parenting time of the parties' child for a period of one year.
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 ofKaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeFamily Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d687 [2009]; Matter of Lallmohamedv Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]), "whose determination regarding the credibilityof witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record"(Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at 1178 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMatter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822, 822 [2008]; Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d529, 530 [2004]). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at thefact-finding hearing supports the hearing court's determination that the husband committed thefamily offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order ofprotection (see Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at1178; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d909, 910 [2008]; Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d at 822).
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Roman, JJ., concur.