| Matter of Saleem v Waqar Ahmed Chaudhry |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06579 [110 AD3d 817] |
| October 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sitara Saleem, Appellant, v WaqarAhmed Chaudhry, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Waqar AhmedChaudhry, Respondent, v Sitara Saleem, Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Helene Chowes, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn and Janet Neustaetter ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, themother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner,J.), dated September 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that shecommitted the family offenses of aggravated harassment and harassment in the seconddegree, granted the father's petition, directed the mother to refrain from, inter alia,harassing or menacing the father, and dismissed her petitions.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (seeFamily Ct Act § 832; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712[2010]).
Here, the father established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mothercommitted the family offenses of aggravated harassment and harassment in the seconddegree (see Matter of Fiore vFiore, 34 AD3d 803 [2006]). The mother failed to establish, by a fairpreponderance of the evidence, either that the father committed a family offense or thathe violated a temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2010. The Family Court'sdeterminations turned on its assessment of the parties' credibility, and, since itsassessment is supported by the record, they will not be disturbed (see Matter of Richardson vRichardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]).
Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, under the circumstances of this case,the Family Court's failure to conduct a dispositional hearing does not warrant reversal(see Matter [*2]of Hassett v Hassett, 4 AD3d 527 [2004];Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812 [2002]).
The mother's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court orwithout merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.