Opinion
2022–07681, 2022–07682 Docket No. O–191–22
09-27-2023
In the Matter of Jill P. HEFETZ, appellant, v. Michael A. ROSENBLATT, respondent.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant. LoPresti Law, PLLC, Massapequa, NY (Genevieve Lane LoPresti of counsel), for respondent.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
LoPresti Law, PLLC, Massapequa, NY (Genevieve Lane LoPresti of counsel), for respondent.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., BETSY BARROS, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ayesha K. Brantley, J.), dated August 22, 2022, and (2) a corrected order of the same court dated September 1, 2022. The order and corrected order, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 22, 2022, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the corrected order dated September 1, 2022; and it is further,
ORDERED that the corrected order dated September 1, 2022, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against her brother, the respondent, alleging, inter alia, that he charged at her and pushed her. The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be "supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence" ( Family Ct Act § 832 ; see Matter of Singh v. Kaur, 213 A.D.3d 771, 771, 181 N.Y.S.3d 469 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Singh v. Kaur, 213 A.D.3d at 771, 181 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; Matter of Mullings v. Abrahams, 171 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 96 N.Y.S.3d 909 ). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court's finding that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that a family offense was committed by the respondent is supported by the record (see Matter of Singh v. Kaur, 213 A.D.3d at 771, 181 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
LASALLE, P.J., BARROS, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.