| Matter of Tulshi v Tulshi |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04021 [118 AD3d 716] |
| June 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sadna Tulshi,Appellant, v Omesh Tulshi, Respondent. |
Rhea G. Friedman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated March 1,2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be "supported by a fairpreponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett,102 AD3d 695 [2013]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007 [2012]; Matter of Daoud v Daoud, 92AD3d 878 [2012]; Matterof Mamantov v Mamantov, 86 AD3d 540, 541 [2011]). "The determination ofwhether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the FamilyCourt, and the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses isentitled to great weight on appeal" (Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010][internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141[2010]; Matter of Gray vGray, 55 AD3d 909 [2008]; Matter of Rankoth v Sloan, 44 AD3d 863, 863-864 [2007];Matter of Charles v Charles,21 AD3d 487 [2005]). The Family Court's credibility determinations will not bedisturbed if supported by the record (see Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44[2010]; Matter of Luke vLuke, 72 AD3d 689, 689 [2010]; Matter of Barnes v Barnes, 54 AD3d 755, 755 [2008]; Matter of Belgrave v Mingo,28 AD3d 479, 479 [2006]).
Here, the mother filed a family offense petition alleging, inter alia, that the father hadcommitted the family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment, and assault. Thedetermination of the Family Court that the mother failed to establish, by a preponderanceof the evidence, that the father committed a family offense hinged on issues ofcredibility, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Velazquez v Haffey, 113 AD3d 783 [2014];Matter of Khan v Khan, 112AD3d 829 [2013]; Matterof Chavez-Gonzalez v Tran, 107 AD3d 983 [2013]; Matter of Howell v Howell,105 AD3d 847, 847 [2013]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the FamilyCourt's determination denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. Mastro, J.P.,Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.