| Matter of Marte v Biondo |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02077 [104 AD3d 947] |
| March 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lucia Marte, Appellant, v MarianoBiondo, Respondent. |
—[*1] Tammi D. Pere, West Hempstead, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitionerappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, QueensCounty (Lubow, J.), dated January 11, 2012, as, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed somuch of her petition as alleged that Mariano Biondo committed the family offenses ofharassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
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, and the credibility determinations of that court,which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerabledeference on appeal (see Matterof Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]; Matter of Richardson vRichardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]). Here, contrary to the appellant'scontention, the Family Court properly determined that the evidence adduced at thefact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish the family offenses of harassment in thesecond degree and disorderly conduct (see Penal Law §§ 240.26,240.20; Matter of Mamantov vMamantov, 86 AD3d 540, 541 [2011]; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden,298 AD2d 390, 391-392 [2002]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed so much of the petition as allegedthat Mariano Biondo committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degreeand disorderly conduct. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.