| Matter of Davis v Felder |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04213 [140 AD3d 752] |
| June 1, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Thomas Davis,Appellant, v Raymond Felder, Respondent. |
Helene Chowes, New York, NY, for appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 3, 2015. The order, after a hearing, dismissed withprejudice the petitioner's family offense petition against the respondent.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the respondent, his uncle,alleging that during an argument while the petitioner was visiting at the respondent'sresidence, the respondent verbally abused and insulted him, and threw a drinking glass,striking him in the right shoulder. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Courtdetermined that the credible evidence failed to support a finding that a family offensewas committed, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing theoffense by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 832; Matter ofBuskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544 [2013]).Whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the FamilyCourt, and that court's determination of credibility issues is entitled to great weight onappeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Niyazova vShimunov, 134 AD3d 1122 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court did not err in finding thatthe credible evidence failed to establish that the respondent committed the familyoffenses of assault in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.00) andharassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26). Thecourt's credibility determinations are supported by the record, and we discern no basis fordisturbing the order dismissing the petition with prejudice (see Matter of Little v Renz,137 AD3d 916 [2016]; Matter of Buskey v Buskey, 133 AD3d 655 [2015]; Matter of Goldring v Sprei,121 AD3d 894 [2014]). Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.