| Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04331 [107 AD3d 793] |
| June 12, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of William E. Cabeza,Respondent, v William Jeisy Cabeza, Appellant. |
—[*1] Stewart N. Altman, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, William JeisyCabeza appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Jolly,J.), dated July 16, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed thefamily offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from WilliamE. Cabeza, and to refrain from harassing William E. Cabeza.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court erred in crediting the testimony againsthim, so as to find that he committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and to grantan order of protection against him. "The determination of whether a family offense wascommitted is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court'sdetermination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appealand will not be disturbed if supported by the record" (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44[2010]; see Matter of Winfield vGammons, 105 AD3d 753 [2013]; Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding, 101 AD3d 1117[2012]). Here, the Family Court was presented with conflicting testimony as to whetherthe appellant committed the family offense at issue. The Family Court's determinationthat the appellant had committed the family offense was based upon its assessment of thecredibility of the parties and is supported by the record (see Matter of Winfield vGammons, 105 AD3d 753 [2013]; Matter of Luke v Luke, 72 AD3d 689 [2010]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination. Skelos, J.P.,Angiolillo, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.