Opinion
2011-10-4
In the Matter of Maria ARUTI, appellant,v.Ike ARUTI, respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
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.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 59 A.D.3d 621, 875 N.Y.S.2d 86). 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 A.D.3d 711, 712, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87; Matter of Fleming v. Fleming, 52 A.D.3d 600, 859 N.Y.S.2d 739; Matter of Rivera v. Quinones–Rivera, 15 A.D.3d 583, 790 N.Y.S.2d 209; Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 A.D.3d 629, 786 N.Y.S.2d 345; Matter of Topper v. Topper, 271 A.D.2d 613, 706 N.Y.S.2d 147).
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[1]; § 832; Matter of Ann P. v. Nicholas C.P., 44 A.D.3d 776, 843 N.Y.S.2d 406; Matter of London v. Blazer, 2 A.D.3d 860, 861, 770 N.Y.S.2d 375). 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 A.D.3d at 622, 875 N.Y.S.2d 86; Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 A.D.3d 629, 786 N.Y.S.2d 345; Matter of Garland v. Garland, 3 A.D.3d 496, 769 N.Y.S.2d 758).
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.