| Matter of Scioscia v Scioscia |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07848 [89 AD3d 739] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tracey Scioscia, Respondent, v DanteScioscia, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appealsfrom an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated July 19,2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing and upon a finding that he had committed the familyoffense of harassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the wifeand her residence until and including July 19, 2011.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on July 19, 2011, the appeal hasnot been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flowfrom a finding that the appellant committed a family offense (see Matter of Willis v Rhinehart, 76 AD3d 641, 642 [2010]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d599 [2007]; Matter ofDeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]).
"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 entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record" (Matter of Bibolova v Radu, 82 AD3d1222, 1223 [2011]; see Matter ofCreighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]). Here, a fair preponderance of thecredible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's determinationthat the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warrantingthe issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Williams v Maise, 85 AD3d 933, 934 [2011]; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d853, 854 [2011]; Matter of Kaur vSingh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Roman,JJ., concur.