| Matter of Streat v Streat |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03523 [117 AD3d 837] |
| May 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sophia Rock Streat,Appellant, v Anthony Streat, Respondent. (Docket No.O-19444-12.) |
Caitlin Donahue, Fresh Meadows, N.Y., for appellant.
Stephen David Fink, Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitionerappeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated April 15,2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a'fair preponderance of the evidence,' that the charged conduct was committed as allegedin the petition" (Matter ofCassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act§ 832; see Matterof Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). " 'The determinationof whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by thehearing court' " (Matterof Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010], quoting Matter of Creighton vWhitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act§§ 812, 832; Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61AD3d 687 [2009]; Matterof Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562 [2005]), "whose 'determinationregarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearlyunsupported by the record' " (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d at 1178,quoting Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; see Matter ofYalvac v Yalvac, 83 AD3d at 854; Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822, 822 [2008];Matter of Phillips v Laland,4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]).
Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as towhether the respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree.The Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish that a familyoffense was committed against her was based on its credibility assessments, and issupported by the record (seeMatter of Alonso v Perdue, 112 AD3d 920, 920 [2013]; Matter of Amato v Amato, 100AD3d 988, 989 [2012]; Matter of Sepulveda v Perez, 90 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2011];Matter of DosReis vRousseau, 85 AD3d 1028, 1028 [2011]; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 44[2010]; Matter of Luke vLuke, 72 AD3d 689, 689 [2010]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding. Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.