Opinion
2011-04-12
In the Matter of Susan YALVAC, respondent, v. Deniz A. YALVAC, appellant.
Parola & Gross, LLP, Wantagh, N.Y. (Barry J. Gross of counsel), for appellant. Louis S. Sroka, Jericho, N.Y., for respondent.
Parola & Gross, LLP, Wantagh, N.Y. (Barry J. Gross of counsel), for appellant. Louis S. Sroka, Jericho, N.Y., for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated April 21, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, inter alia, directed him to refrain from communicating with the wife except with regard to matters concerning the health, welfare, education, and parenting time of the parties' child for a period of one year.
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 Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeFamily Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;Matter of Halper v. Halper, 61 A.D.3d 687, 875 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Lallmohamed v. Lallmohamed, 23 A.D.3d 562, 806 N.Y.S.2d 622), “whose determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d at 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d at 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585;Matter of Robbins v. Robbins, 48 A.D.3d 822, 822, 851 N.Y.S.2d 877;Matter of Phillips v. Laland, 4 A.D.3d 529, 530, 771 N.Y.S.2d 718). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports the hearing court's determination that the husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( seePenal Law § 240.26; 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;Matter of Gray v. Gray, 55 A.D.3d 909, 910, 867 N.Y.S.2d 110;Matter of Robbins v. Robbins, 48 A.D.3d at 822, 851 N.Y.S.2d 877).
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.