| Matter of Williams v Maise |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05289 [85 AD3d 933] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nikitsha Williams, Respondent, v KedrickMaise, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Kedrick Maise appealsfrom an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County(IDV Part) (Kiedaisch, J.), entered June 22, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that hehad committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and directed him tocomply with the conditions set forth in an order of protection dated April 1, 2010, for a period oftwo years, commencing on April 1, 2010.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
"The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the hearing court (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d687 [2009]; Matter of Lallmohamedv Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]), and that court's determination regarding thecredibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by therecord" (Matter of Creighton vWhitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d909 [2008]). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a "fair preponderance" (Family CtAct § 832) of the credible evidence supported the hearing court's determination that hecommitted the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of anorder of protection (see Family Ct Act § 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Matter of Jessica C. v Esteban B., 13AD3d 183 [2004]; People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8, 10 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin,Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.