| Matter of Cruz v Rodriguez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04743 [96 AD3d 838] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Blanca Cruz, Respondent, v ArcadioRodriguez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Dean Kusakabe, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Arcadio Rodriguezappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), datedNovember 16, 2011, which, after a hearing and, in effect, upon a finding that he had committedthe family offenses of menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct, directed him, interalia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including November 16, 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 hearing court" (Matter ofCreighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act§§ 812, 832; Matter ofArmstrong v Ewing, 82 AD3d 1092 [2011]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]), and that court'sdetermination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference onappeal (see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; see Matter of Kaur vSingh, 73 AD3d at 1178). Contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of thecredible evidence supported the Family Court's determination that he committed acts whichconstituted the family offenses of menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct,warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Penal Law §§ 120.15,240.20; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Armstrong v Ewing, 82 AD3d at 1093;Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78AD3d 711 [2010]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at 1178).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.