| Matter of Garbarino v Garbarino |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05788 [120 AD3d 578] |
| August 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of John Garbarino,Respondent, v Linda Garbarino, Appellant. |
Levinson, Reineke & Ornstein, P.C., Central Valley, N.Y. (Justin E. Kimple ofcounsel), for appellant.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, LindaGarbarino appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County(Kiedaisch, J.), dated August 22, 2013, which, upon a finding that she committed thefamily offense of harassment in the second degree, made after a hearing, and upon theissuance of an order of protection dated August 22, 2013, directed her to comply with theconditions set forth in the order of protection dated August 22, 2013.
Ordered that the order of disposition is 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 vTorres, 38 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297AD2d 812 [2002]; Matter of Hogan v Hogan, 271 AD2d 533 [2000]). TheFamily Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to greatweight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Santiago vFriedman, 35 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]).Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidencesupports the Family Court's determination that she committed the family offense ofharassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protectionagainst her (see Family Ct Act § 832; Penal Law§ 240.26 [3]; Matter of Oakes v Oakes, 115 AD3d 956 [2014];Matter of Santiago v Friedman, 35 AD3d at 482; Matter of Abbott v Burnes, 27AD3d 555 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.