| Matter of Howell v Howell |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02397 [105 AD3d 847] |
| April 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Marilyn Howell,Appellant, v Gordon E. Howell, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitionerappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Cannataro, J.), dated April 4,2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition and vacated a temporary order ofprotection against the respondent.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue tobe resolved by the hearing court" (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141[2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Clarke-Golding vGolding, 101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]), "and thatcourt's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight onappeal unless clearly unsupported by the record" (Matter of Creighton vWhitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010]).
Here, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failedto prove, by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committedan act constituting a family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Robinson v Bennett,49 AD3d 652 [2008]; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d 675[2005]). The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the FamilyCourt properly dismissed the petition and vacated the temporary order of protectionagainst the respondent. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.