Opinion
2009-11061, (Docket No. O-13214-07).
Decided on October 4, 2011.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Jackman-Brown, J.), dated August 21, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, RANDALL T. ENG, SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck , 59 AD3d 621 ). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court ( see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman , 78 AD3d 711 , 712; Matter of Fleming v Fleming , 52 AD3d 600 ; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera , 15 AD3d 583 ; Matter of King v Flowers , 13 AD3d 629; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613).
Here, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense ( see Family Ct Act § 812; § 832; Matter of Ann P. v Nicholas C.P. , 44 AD3d 776 ; Matter of London v Blazer , 2 AD3d 860 , 861). Since the allegations in the petition were not established, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding ( see Family Ct Act § 841[a]; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d at 622; Matter of King v Flowers , 13 AD3d 629 ; Matter of Garland v Garland , 3 AD3d 496).
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.