| Matter of Giresi-Palazzolo v Palazzolo |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02763 [127 AD3d 752] |
| April 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Mimma Giresi-Palazzolo,Appellant, v Matteo Palazzolo, Respondent. |
Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anne-Marie Jolly, J.),dated October 16, 2013. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the mother's familyoffense petition against the father and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother filed a family offense petition alleging, inter alia, that the father hadcommitted the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderlyconduct. After conducting a hearing, the Family Court, in effect, denied the petition anddismissed the proceeding.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be "supported by a fairpreponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Tulshi v Tulshi,118 AD3d 716 [2014]; Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett, 102 AD3d 695 [2013]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston,100 AD3d 1007 [2012]). The determination of whether a family offense wascommitted is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's findingsregarding the credibility of witnesses, unless clearly unsupported by the record, areentitled to great weight on appeal (see Matter of Tulshi v Tulshi, 118 AD3d at717; Matter of Pearlman vPearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Gray v Gray, 55 AD3d 909 [2008]).
The Family Court's determination that the mother failed to establish, by apreponderance of the evidence, that the father committed the family offenses alleged inthe petition, hinged on credibility, and the Family Court's assessment of the parties'credibility is supported by the record (see Matter of Tulshi v Tulshi, 118 AD3d at717; Matter of Velazquez vHaffey, 113 AD3d 783 [2014]; Matter of Khan v Khan, 112 AD3d 829 [2013]).Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err by admitting intoevidence an audio recording of a conversation that took place between the parties onDecember 23, 2012. The father testified that he had personally recorded the conversation,that the recording was a complete and accurate reproduction of their interaction, and thatthe recording had not been altered. [*2]This testimony,which the Family Court credited, constituted sufficient proof of the accuracy andauthenticity of the recording to warrant its admission (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d520, 527-528 [1986]; People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 59-60 [1979]; Matter of Hirsh v Stern, 74AD3d 967, 968 [2010]). Any infirmities concerning audibility went to the weight ofthe evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d at 528; Peoplev McGee, 49 NY2d at 60). Chambers, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.