| Matter of Nettles v Fearrington |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03845 [95 AD3d 1131] |
| May 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lisa Nettles, Respondent, v ShaomariFearrington, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Francine H. Moss, Ronkonkoma, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Shaomari Fearringtonappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.),dated May 24, 2011, which, after a hearing, and, in effect, upon a finding that he had committedthe family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, and harassment in thesecond degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including May10, 2013.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the Family Court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses areentitled to great weight on appeal" (Matter of Genzen v Genzen, 74 AD3d 1196, 1196 [2010]). Here,the Family Court properly, in effect, found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that theappellant committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, andharassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of the order of protection (seeFamily Ct Act § 842; Penal Law §§ 240.20, 240.25, 240.26; Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d924, 925 [2008]; Matter ofBonsignore v Bonsignore, 37 AD3d 602 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Colon, 16 AD3d 496 [2005]).
Since the Family Court did not find that the appellant committed the family offense ofaggravated harassment in the second degree, we need not reach the appellant's contentionregarding that family offense. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.