| Matter of Oakes v Oakes |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02050 [115 AD3d 956] |
| March 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Robert E. Oakes,Respondent, v Gail Oakes, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of GailOakes, Appellant, v Robert Oakes, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, GailOakes appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), datedDecember 12, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied her petition for an order ofprotection against Robert Oakes, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of thesame court, also dated December 12, 2012, which granted the cross petition of RobertOakes to the extent of finding that she committed the family offense of harassment in thesecond degree and directing the entry of a suspended judgment against her.
Ordered that the order and the order of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed,without costs or disbursements.
The allegations asserted in a petition in a family offense proceeding must besupported by "a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Patton v Torres,38 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812[2002]; Matter of Hogan v Hogan, 271 AD2d 533 [2000]). The Family Court'sdetermination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appealunless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d 482 [2006];Matter of Phillips v Laland,4 AD3d 529 [2004]). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a fairpreponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court's determination thatshe committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting theissuance of a suspended judgment against the appellant (see Family Ct Act§ 832; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35AD3d at 482; Matter of Abbottv Burnes, 27 AD3d 555 [2006]).
The record also supports the Family Court's determination that the evidence adducedat the hearing was insufficient to establish that the respondent committed a familyoffense against the appellant.[*2]
The appellant's remaining contention is withoutmerit. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.