| Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00092 [102 AD3d 695] |
| January 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Destinie Hill Jarrett,Appellant, v Kemar Jarrett, Respondent. |
—[*1] Helene Migdon Greenberg, Elmsford, N.Y., for respondent. Robert H. Beck, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Greenwald, J.), enteredNovember 7, 2011, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be "supported by a fairpreponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Nunziata vNunziata, 93 AD3d 800, 801 [2012]; Matter of Daoud v Daoud, 92 AD3d 878 [2012]; Matter of Pearlman vPearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 72 AD3d 834, 835 [2010];Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51AD3d 924, 925 [2008]; Matter of Patton v Torres, 38 AD3d 667, 668 [2007])."Only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-findinghearing" (Family Ct Act § 834; see Matter of Daoud v Daoud, 92 AD3d at878).
Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition consisted solely ofinadmissible hearsay. The mother, therefore, failed to establish the allegations in thepetition by competent evidence (see Family Ct Act § 834; Matter ofDaoud v Daoud, 92 AD3d at 878-879). Accordingly, the Family Court properlydismissed the petition.
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera,Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.