| Matter of Aruti v Aruti |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07036 [88 AD3d 700] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Maria Aruti, Appellant, v Ike Aruti,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Jackman-Brown, J.), dated August 21, 2009,which, after a fact-finding hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
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 ofHasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621 [2009]). The determination of whether a familyoffense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter ofFleming v Fleming, 52 AD3d 600 [2008]; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d629 [2004]; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613 [2000]).
Here, the petitioner 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. vNicholas C.P., 44 AD3d 776 [2007]; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861 [2003]). Since theallegations in the petition were not established, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied thepetition and dismissed the proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 841 [a]; Matter ofHasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d at 622; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d496 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.