Opinion
2012-06-6
In the Matter of Tori LANNAMAN, appellant, v. Tina MINUS, respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Carl S. Chu, Fishkill, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Carl S. Chu, Fishkill, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), both dated July 12, 2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and its determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal ( see Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226;Matter of DosReis v. Rousseau, 85 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 925 N.Y.S.2d 849;Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of Fiore v. Fiore, 34 A.D.3d 803, 823 N.Y.S.2d 902).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the father failed to establish acts constituting a family offense was based upon its assessment of the parties' credibility and is supported by the record ( see Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226;Matter of DosReis v. Rousseau, 85 A.D.3d 1028, 925 N.Y.S.2d 849;Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 A.D.3d 629, 786 N.Y.S.2d 345). Moreover, under the circumstances here, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's request for an adjournment in order to obtain previously subpoenaed telephone records ( see Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447;Garritano v. Garritano, 62 A.D.3d 657, 658, 878 N.Y.S.2d 402;Matter of Cabral v. Cabral, 35 A.D.3d 779, 779–780, 826 N.Y.S.2d 443;People v. Perez, 249 A.D.2d 492, 671 N.Y.S.2d 675).
Since the allegations in the petition were not established, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition ( see Matter of Aruti v. Aruti, 88 A.D.3d 700, 701, 930 N.Y.S.2d 481;Matter of Rivera v. Quinones–Rivera, 15 A.D.3d 583, 790 N.Y.S.2d 209;Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 A.D.3d 629, 786 N.Y.S.2d 345).