| Matter of Winfield v Gammons |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02259 [105 AD3d 753] |
| April 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Assia Winfield,Respondent, v LePaul Gammons, Appellant. |
—[*1] Rene Myatt, Hollis, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, LePaulGammons appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County(Lebwohl, J.), dated January 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that hecommitted certain family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812,directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including December12, 2014.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court erred in denying his request for anadjournment and that the Family Court thereby denied him of a fair trial. "An applicationfor a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial courtprovidently exercised its discretion" (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332[2003]). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court, which had previouslygranted an application of the appellant for an adjournment and, in fact, had given theparties approximately four additional months to prepare for a hearing, did notimprovidently exercise its discretion in denying the request for an adjournment made bythe appellant on the date set for the hearing (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d270, 283 [1984]; Atwater vMace, 39 AD3d 573 [2007]; Matter of Steven B., 24 AD3d 384, 385 [2005]).
The appellant further contends that the Family Court erred in crediting the testimonyagainst him and in granting the order of protection. The determination of whether afamily offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, andthat court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weighton appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Clarke-Golding vGolding, 101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]; Matter of Luke v Luke, 72AD3d 689 [2010]; Matterof Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]). Here, the Family Courtwas presented with conflicting testimony as to whether the appellant committed thefamily offenses at issue. The Family Court's determination that the appellant hadcommitted the family offenses was based upon its assessment of the credibility of theparties and is supported by the record (see Matter of Luke v Luke, 72 AD3d at689).[*2]
Accordingly, we decline to disturb the FamilyCourt's determination. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.