| Matter of Alicea v Alfano |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03591 [83 AD3d 1054] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Maria Christina Alicea,Appellant, v Edward N. Alfano, Respondent. |
—[*1] Jeffrey C. Bluth, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Maria Christina Aliceaappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.H.O.), dated January 26,2010, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621 [2009]).The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved bythe Family Court; its determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to greatweight on appeal (see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010];Matter of Fleming v Fleming, 52 AD3d 600 [2008]; Matter of Rivera vQuinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629[2004]; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613 [2000]).
Here, the appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondentcommitted acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]; § 832; Matter of Ann P. v Nicholas C.P., 44 AD3d 776 [2007]; Matter ofLondon v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861 [2003]). Since the allegations in the petition were notestablished, the petition was properly dismissed (see Family Ct Act § 841 [a];Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d at 622; Matter of King v Flowers,13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d 496 [2004]). Mastro, J.P.,Belen, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.