Opinion
2018–01748 Docket No. O–30540–16
02-06-2019
In the Matter of Amanda FELICIANO, Respondent, v. Orlando I. COOPER, Appellant.
Ronna Gordon–Galchus, Fresh Meadows, NY, for appellant. White & Case LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathryn H. Swisher of counsel), for respondent. Janet Neustaetter, Brooklyn, NY, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, N.Y. (William B. Michael, Darren W. Johnson, and Edward C. Robinson, Jr., of counsel), attorney for the children (one brief filed).
Ronna Gordon–Galchus, Fresh Meadows, NY, for appellant.
White & Case LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathryn H. Swisher of counsel), for respondent.
Janet Neustaetter, Brooklyn, NY, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, N.Y. (William B. Michael, Darren W. Johnson, and Edward C. Robinson, Jr., of counsel), attorney for the children (one brief filed).
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 832 ; Matter ofMalik v. Syed, 133 A.D.3d 761, 761–762, 20 N.Y.S.3d 389 ; Matter of Scanziani v. Hairston, 100 A.D.3d 1007, 1007, 955 N.Y.S.2d 162 ). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that 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 Konstatine v. Konstatine, 107 A.D.3d 994, 994, 968 N.Y.S.2d 166 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).Here, the evidence adduced at a hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the father committed acts which constituted the family offenses of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and criminal obstruction of breathing or circulation (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1] ; Penal Law §§ 120.00, 120.15, 121.11[a] ), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him.
Contrary to the father's contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court's finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances warranting the issuance of an order of protection against the father and in favor of the mother and the children for a period of five years (see Family Ct. Act §§ 827[a][vii] ; 842).
The father's remaining contention is without merit.
DILLON, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.