Opinion
2014-04-16
In the Matter of Denise M. MANCO, respondent, v. Dominick F. MANCO, appellant.
Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Allan B. Rappleyea of counsel), for appellant. Stevan A. Nosonowitz, Pleasant Valley, N.Y., for respondent.
Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Allan B. Rappleyea of counsel), for appellant. Stevan A. Nosonowitz, Pleasant Valley, N.Y., for respondent.
Wanda Y. Negron, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Dominick F. Manco appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Posner, J.), dated June 11, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and, inter alia, directed him to comply with the conditions set forth in an order of protection of the same court dated June 11, 2013, directed him to complete a batterer's education program, and placed him under the supervision of the Dutchess County Probation Department for a period of one year.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, with costs.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Kanterakis v. Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d 784, 785, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890; Matter of Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court ( see Matter of Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d 881, 882, 973 N.Y.S.2d 703;Matter of Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d at 712, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87). 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 ( see Matter of Hodiantov v. Aronov, 110 A.D.3d at 882, 973 N.Y.S.2d 703;Matter of Kanterakis v. Kanterakis, 102 A.D.3d at 785, 957 N.Y.S.2d 890;Matter of Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, 948 N.Y.S.2d 673). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( seePenal Law § 240.26[3]; Matter of Bazante v. Bazante, 107 A.D.3d 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483;Matter of Jackson v. Idlett, 103 A.D.3d 723, 959 N.Y.S.2d 706).
The record does not support the appellant's contention that the court was biased against him or that it displayed an adversarial attitude toward him. Accordingly, the appellant's contention that he was deprived of fair hearings on these grounds is without merit ( see Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 44–45, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of Murdock v. Murdock, 183 A.D.2d 769, 769, 583 N.Y.S.2d 501). RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.