Opinion
2021–07435 Docket No. O–25517–17
10-19-2022
In the Matter of Liliya BUCHOVSKA, respondent, v. Umitjon KAMOLOV, appellant.
Richard Cardinale, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Richard Cardinale, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ben Darvil, Jr., J.), dated September 23, 2021. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, found that the father committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the mother and against him for a period of two years.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties, who are divorced, are the parents of a child born in 2009. In 2017, the mother commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, alleging in her petition that the father committed various family offenses, and seeking an order of protection against the father. After conducting a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the mother's testimony was credible, determined that the father committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and directed the issuance of an order of protection against the father and in favor of the mother. The father appeals.
" ‘In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence’ " ( Matter of Livesey v. Gulick, 194 A.D.3d 1045, 1047, 149 N.Y.S.3d 479, quoting Matter of Shank v. Miller, 148 A.D.3d 1160, 1160, 50 N.Y.S.3d 525 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Breier v. Breier, 202 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 159 N.Y.S.3d 870 ; Matter of Royal v. Royal, 187 A.D.3d 1195, 1196, 131 N.Y.S.3d 632 ). " ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record’ " ( Matter of Richardson v. Brown, 173 A.D.3d 875, 876, 104 N.Y.S.3d 132, quoting Matter of Fruchthandler v. Fruchthandler, 161 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 78 N.Y.S.3d 214 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Breier v. Breier, 202 A.D.3d at 1084, 159 N.Y.S.3d 870 ; Matter of Royal v. Royal, 187 A.D.3d at 1196, 131 N.Y.S.3d 632 ). Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the father committed the family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree ( Penal Law § 240.30[4] ; see Matter of Acevedo v. Acevedo, 145 A.D.3d 773, 775, 43 N.Y.S.3d 443 ; Matter of Drury v. Drury, 90 A.D.3d 754, 755, 934 N.Y.S.2d 337 ). The Family Court was presented with conflicting testimony, and its determination was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties and is supported by the record (see Matter of Breier v. Breier, 202 A.D.3d at 1084, 159 N.Y.S.3d 870 ; Matter of Stringer v. Grant, 187 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 134 N.Y.S.3d 361 ).
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.