| Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09691 [134 AD3d 1122] |
| December 30, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Svetlana Niyazova,Respondent, v Daniel Shimunov, Appellant. |
Michael A. Liddie, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.
Janis A. Parazzelli, Floral Park, NY, for respondent.
Lisa Siano, Merrick, NY, attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County(Anne-Marie Jolly, J.), dated March 7, 2014. The order of protection, after a hearing,upon a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in thesecond degree, directed the appellant, inter alia, to refrain from committing any criminaloffenses against the petitioner.
Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on March 7, 2015, theappeal has not been rendered academic in light of the enduring consequences which maypotentially flow from a finding that the appellant committed the subject family offense(see Matter of Veronica P. vRadcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015]; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d 473, 474[2013]).
In a family offense proceeding, the allegations must be "supported by a fairpreponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Silva v Silva, 125AD3d 869, 869 [2015]; Matter of Miloslau v Miloslau, 112 AD3d 632, 632[2013]). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issueto be resolved by the Family Court, and the Family Court's determination regarding thecredibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal" (Matter of Tulshi v Tulshi, 118AD3d 716, 716 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Kondor vKondor, 109 AD3d 660, 660 [2013]), and should not be disturbed unless clearlyunsupported by the record (see Matter of Miloslau v Miloslau, 112 AD3d at632).
Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of theevidence, that the appellant committed acts against the petitioner which constituted thefamily offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law§ 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee,101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protectionagainst him (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian vHagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]). The Family Court found that thepetitioner's testimony that the appellant hit her was credible, and the appellant did notrefute that portion of the petitioner's testimony. In addition, the petitioner's testimony asto this issue was supported by photographic evidence. Thus, the court's credibilitydetermination is supported by the record and should not be [*2]disturbed (see Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza, 107 AD3d 793, 794[2013]; Matter of Winfield vGammons, 105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]).
The provision of the order which, inter alia, directed the appellant to refrain fromcommitting any criminal offenses against the petitioner, was appropriate as it providedmeaningful protection for the petitioner from the appellant consistent with the facts ofthis case (see Matter ofGarbarino v Garbarino, 120 AD3d 578, 579 [2014]; Matter of Miloslau vMiloslau, 112 AD3d at 632).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson,Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.