Opinion
2014-11715 (Docket No. O-15718-14)
2015-07-08
In the Matter of Donald ALLEYNE, respondent, v. Deuel J. ALLY, appellant.
Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Shellon O. Washington, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Ella Royzman, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Appeal from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Maria Arias, J.), dated December 2, 2014. The order of protection, upon a finding, after a hearing, in effect, that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, directed the appellant, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including December 1, 2016.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” ( Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585; see Family Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895). The hearing court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal ( see Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d 881, 973 N.Y.S.2d 703; Matter of Cruz v. Rodriguez, 96 A.D.3d 838, 838, 946 N.Y.S.2d 480; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d at 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895; Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d at 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585).
Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court's determination that he committed acts which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( seePenal Law § 240.26[1]; Family Ct Act § 812[1]; Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d at 882, 973 N.Y.S.2d 703; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d at 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895). Thus, the issuance of the order of protection appealed from was warranted.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.