| Matter of Matheson v Matheson |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04942 [140 AD3d 1068] |
| June 22, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Kevin K. Matheson,Appellant, v Edel M. Matheson, Respondent. |
Mark Brandys, New York, NY, for appellant.
Janis A. Parazzelli, Floral Park, NY, for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.),dated January 15, 2015. The order, after a hearing, dismissed with prejudice thepetitioner's family offense petition against the respondent.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family CourtAct article 8 against the respondent, his wife, alleging, inter alia, that she committed thefamily offense of assault in the third degree by striking him about the head and face withher fists. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the credibleevidence failed to support a finding that the respondent committed a family offense, anddismissed 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 Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337 [2013]; Matter of Khan-Soleil vRashad, 108 AD3d 544 [2013]). Whether a family offense was committed is afactual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determinations as tocredibility issues are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbedunless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov, 134 AD3d 1122[2015]; Matter of Goldring vSprei, 121 AD3d 894 [2014]; Matter of Messana v Messana, 115 AD3d 860 [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 family offenseof assault in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.00). The court'scredibility determinations are supported by the record, and we discern no basis fordisturbing the order dismissing the petition (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]).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the family offense petition with[*2]prejudice. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Maltese,JJ., concur.