| Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05574 [109 AD3d 473] |
| August 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jayasree S. Parameswar,Respondent, v Krishna Parameswar, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, KrishnaParameswar appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County(Hunt, J.), dated June 8, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that hecommitted the family offenses of harassment in the second degree (two offenses) anddisorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Jayasree S. Parameswaruntil and including June 7, 2013.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on June 7, 2013, in light ofthe enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that the appellantcommitted a family offense, the appeal has not been rendered academic (see e.g. Matter of Hefley vFavors, 106 AD3d 909 [2013]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of DeSouza-Brown vBrown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007]).
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 72 AD3d 834, 835 [2010]).The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to beresolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Maiorino v Maiorino, 107 AD3d 717 [2013];Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26AD3d 494, 495 [2006]). The Family Court's determination regarding the credibilityof witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed if supportedby the record (see Matter ofKanterakis v Kanterakis, 102 AD3d 784, 785 [2013]; Matter of Salazar v Melendez,97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]).
Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-findinghearing supports the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed thefamily offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct (seePenal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832;Matter of Scanziani vHairston, 100 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin andMiller, JJ., concur.