| Matter of Velazquez v Haffey |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00366 [113 AD3d 783] |
| January 22, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christina Velazquez,Appellant, v Brian Patrick Haffey, Jr., Respondent. |
—[*1] Joseph M. Clark, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent. Cynthia Holfester-Neugebauer, Sea Cliff, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated November20, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"A family offense must be established by a 'fair preponderance of the evidence' " (Matter of Alam v Alam, 108AD3d 665, 666 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832). "Where, as here, theFamily Court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings mustbe accorded great weight on appeal unless they were clearly unsupported by the record"(Matter of Harris v Harris,59 AD3d 444, 444 [2009]; see Matter of Akter v Patwary, 80 AD3d 759 [2011]; Matter of Krystal M., 3 AD3d498, 499 [2004]; Matter ofSt. Denis v St. Denis, 1 AD3d 370 [2003]). Under the circumstances of thiscase, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that the petitionerfailed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed afamily offense (see Matter ofChavez-Gonzalez v Tran, 107 AD3d 983 [2013]; Matter of Krisztina K. v JohnS., 103 AD3d 724 [2013]; Matter of Harris v Harris, 59 AD3d at444-445).
Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that the attorney for the child failed todiligently represent the best interests of the child (see Matter of Gray v Jones,251 AD2d 765, 767 [1998]; Matter of Burr v Emmett, 249 AD2d 614, 615-616[1998]; Matter of Zirkind v Zirkind, 218 AD2d 745, 746 [1995]). Rivera, J.P.,Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.