Matter of Lannaman v Minus
2012 NY Slip Op 04343 [96 AD3d 756]
June 6, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


In the Matter of Tori Lannaman, Appellant,
v
Tina Minus,Respondent.

[*1]Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Carl S. Chu, Fishkill, N.Y., attorney for the children.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals fromtwo orders of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), both dated July 12, 2011,which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the orders are 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 determination regarding the credibility of witnesses isentitled to considerable deference on appeal (see Matter of Sepulveda v Perez, 90 AD3d 1057 [2011]; Matter of DosReis v Rousseau, 85AD3d 1028, 1029 [2011]; Matter ofRichardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]; Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d803 [2006]).

Here, the Family Court's determination that the father failed to establish acts constituting afamily offense was based upon its assessment of the parties' credibility and is supported by therecord (see Matter of Sepulveda vPerez, 90 AD3d 1057 [2011]; Matter of DosReis v Rousseau, 85 AD3d 1028 [2011]; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80AD3d 32 [2010]; Matter of King vFlowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]). Moreover, under the circumstances here, the FamilyCourt did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's request for anadjournment in order to obtain previously subpoenaed telephone records (see Matter ofAnthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; Garritano v Garritano, 62 AD3d 657, 658 [2009]; Cabral v Cabral, 35 AD3d 779,779-780 [2006]; People v Perez, 249 AD2d 492 [1998]).

Since the allegations in the petition were not established, the Family Court properlydismissed the petition (see Matter ofAruti v Aruti, 88 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583 [2005]; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d629 [2004]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.