Opinion
2020–01604 Docket No. O–1275–19
12-30-2020
In the Matter of Adama FATY, appellant, v. Baba DIAGNE, respondent.
Kyle Sosebee, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for respondent.
Kyle Sosebee, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated January 16, 2020. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On January 9, 2019, the petitioner filed a family offense petition seeking an order of protection against the respondent, alleging that he had committed, inter alia, the family offense of harassment in the second degree. After a hearing, the Family Court determined that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the respondent committed a family offense against the petitioner, and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
"In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence" ( Matter of Harris v. Harris–Olayinka, 181 A.D.3d 605, 605, 117 N.Y.S.3d 619, see Family Ct Act § 832 ). "The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record" ( Matter of Rall v. Phillips, 177 A.D.3d 641, 642, 109 N.Y.S.3d 875 ).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court properly credited the respondent's testimony over that of the petitioner and determined that the evidence proffered in support of the petition was insufficient to establish that the respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Matter of Harris v. Harris–Olayinka, 181 A.D.3d 605, 117 N.Y.S.3d 619 ; Matter of Buskey v. Buskey, 133 A.D.3d 655, 20 N.Y.S.3d 108 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's determination, in effect, to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding.
MASTRO, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.