Opinion
11867 Dkt. No. O1220/2019 Case No. 2019-05352
09-29-2020
In re WILLIAM C., Petitioner–Appellant, v. CHYNNA C., Respondent–Respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kern, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jacob K. Maeroff, Referee), entered on or about November 20, 2019, which, after a hearing, in this proceeding brought pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the petition for an order of protection against respondent with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent, his adult daughter, committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Marilyn C. v. Olsen C. , 132 A.D.3d 406, 16 N.Y.S.3d 735 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Family Ct. Act. § 832 ). There exists no basis to disturb the Referee's determination that the daughter's testimony was more credible than that of petitioner (see Matter of Hany A. v. Eric A. , 158 A.D.3d 545, 68 N.Y.S.3d 718 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904, 2018 WL 1957164 [2018] ; Matter of Melind M. v. Joseph P. , 95 A.D.3d 553, 555, 944 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
Petitioner failed to preserve his argument that he was deprived of the right to counsel by the court's general instruction, at the end of the first day of his testimony, that he not discuss the contents of his testimony with anyone. In any event, the argument is unavailing since no prejudice resulted from the court's directive (see Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C. , 179 A.D.3d 546, 118 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2020] ), lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905, 2020 WL 3054504 [2020] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.