| Matter of Callahan v Picciano |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02573 [105 AD3d 953] |
| April 17, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Susan Callahan, Appellant, v MarcPicciano, Respondent. |
—[*1] Marc Picciano, Lynbrook, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitionerappeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated March 21,2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.
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 Armstrong v Ewing, 82 AD3d 1092 [2011]). Thehearing court's determination concerning the credibility of witnesses is entitled to greatweight on appeal unless that determination is clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Clarke-Golding vGolding, 101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178 [2010]; Matter of Creighton vWhitmore, 71 AD3d 1141 [2010]).
Here, the record supports the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failedto prove, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committed thefamily offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the seconddegree (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Penal Law§§ 110.00, 120.00, 240.26; Matter of Ford v Pitts, 30 AD3d 419 [2006]; Matter ofStrully v Schwartz, 255 AD2d 593 [1998]). Accordingly, the petition was properlydismissed. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.