| Matter of Daoud v Daoud |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01457 [92 AD3d 878] |
| February 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Wafa H. Daoud, Respondent, v Bashir HajDaoud, Appellant. |
—[*1] Wafa H. Daoud, Wantagh, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Bashir Haj Daoudappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Zimmerman, J.), datedJune 6, 2011, which, after a hearing, and, in effect, upon a finding that he had committed a familyoffense, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including June 5,2012.
Ordered that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements,the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding seeking the issuance of an order of protectionmust be "supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Aruti v Aruti, 88 AD3d700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Ungar vUngar, 80 AD3d 771 [2011]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 72 AD3d834, 835 [2010]). "Only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in afact-finding hearing" (Family Ct Act § 834; see Matter of Belinda YY. v Lee ZZ., 74 AD3d 1394, 1395[2010]).
Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition consisted solely of inadmissiblehearsay. The petitioner therefore failed to establish the allegations in the petition by competentevidence (see Family Ct Act § 834; Matter of Belinda YY. v Lee ZZ., 74AD3d at 1395; Dorene L. v DhaneswarR., 29 Misc 3d 462 [2010], affd 89 AD3d 428 [2011]). Accordingly, the order ofprotection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.