| Matter of Hohn v Guirand |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05415 [97 AD3d 578] |
| July 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Phillip Hohn, Respondent, v NancyGuirand, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Nancy Guirandappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Christopher, J.),dated August 5, 2010, which, after a hearing, upon a finding that she committed the familyoffense of harassment in the second degree, directed her, inter alia, to stay away from thepetitioner for a period of one year.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on August 5, 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 Scioscia v Scioscia, 89 AD3d 739, 740 [2011]; Matter of Willis v Rhinehart, 76 AD3d641, 642 [2010]).
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 deference on appeal (see Matter of Scioscia v Scioscia, 89 AD3dat 740). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingsupported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense ofharassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (seeFamily Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [1], [3]; Matter ofScioscia v Scioscia, 89 AD3d at 740; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Angiolillo, Austin andSgroi, JJ., concur.