Matter of Deepti v Kaushik

2015 NY Slip Op 01942 [126 AD3d 790]

March 11, 2015

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, April 29, 2015

[*1]

In the Matter of Ngn Deepti,Respondent, v Parveen Kaushik, Appellant.

Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Karen G. Brand, P.C., Manhasset, N.Y., for respondent.

Paul B. Guttenberg, Syosset, N.Y., attorney for the child.

Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl,J.), dated February 4, 2014. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a findingthat Parveen Kaushik committed family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act§ 812, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and theparties' child until and including February 3, 2016.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A family offense must be established by a "fair preponderance of the evidence"(Family Ct Act § 832). The determination of whether a family offense wascommitted is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and that court'sdetermination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appealand will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Abatantuno vAbatantuno, 119 AD3d 779, 779 [2014]; Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141[2010]). "In order to facilitate effective appellate review, however, the Family Court,which is the court best able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, must state in itsdecision the facts it deems essential to its determination" (Matter of Son v Ramos, 117AD3d 745, 746 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the Family Court failed to state on the record the facts which it deemedessential to its determination to grant the petition for an order of protection (seeCPLR 4213 [b]; Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025-1026 [1979]).However, remittal is not necessary because the record is sufficient for this Court toconduct an independent review of the evidence (see Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2dat 1026; Matter of Rosenbloomv Rosenbloom, 122 AD3d 864, 865 [2014]; Matter of Son v Ramos, 117AD3d at 746). Upon our review, we conclude that a fair preponderance of the evidenceadduced at the hearing established that the appellant committed the family offenses ofassault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment in thesecond degree, harassment in the second degree, and disorderly conduct, warranting theissuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812[1]; 832; Penal Law §§ 120.00, 120.15, 120.20, 240.26, 240.20).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Roman, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalleand Barros, JJ., concur.