| Matter of Marisela N. v Lacy M.S. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08263 [101 AD3d 425] |
| December 4, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Marisela N., Respondent, v Lacy M.S.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Susan M. Cordaro of counsel),attorney for the children.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 19,2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection for two years,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832), includingpetitioner's testimony, supports the court's finding that respondent had committed acts thatconstitute the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act§ 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection(see Family Ct Act § 841). There is no basis to disturb the court's credibilitydeterminations (see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]).
The order of protection is valid despite the lack of a dispositional hearing. "There is noexplicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under FamilyCourt Act article 8" (Matter of HazelP.R. v Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [1st Dept 2006]). In addition, respondent neverdemanded, or objected to the lack of, such a hearing (see Matter of Tonya B. v Matthew B., 90 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept2011]). Moreover, since there is no other legal remedy available for the harassment provedagainst respondent and she "does not suggest [*2]any remedyother than issuance of an order of protection, a separate dispositional hearing would have servedno purpose" (Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W., 278 AD2d 177, 177-178 [1st Dept2000]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.