| Matter of Kanterakis v Kanterakis |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00209 [102 AD3d 784] |
| January 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Emily Kanterakis,Respondent, v Nikolaos E. Kanterakis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lisa Siano, Uniondale, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husbandappeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Singer, J.),dated July 22, 2011, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding, in effect, that he hadcommitted the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and aggravatedharassment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitionerfor a period up to and including January 21, 2013.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712[2010]). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issueto be resolved by the Family Court" (Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d at712 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The Family Court's determination regarding thecredibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed ifsupported by the record (seeMatter of Salazar v Melendez, 97 AD3d 754 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d852 [2012]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d at 712; Matter ofTopper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613 [2000]).
Here, a preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court'sdetermination, after a hearing, that, in effect, the appellant had committed the familyoffenses of aggravated harassment in the second degree and harassment in the seconddegree (see Matter of Salazar vMelendez, 97 AD3d 754 [2012]; Matter of Opray v Fitzharris, 84 AD3d 1092 [2011]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson,Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.