Opinion
2014-04-23
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, N.Y., for appellant. Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent Salvatore LaScala.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, N.Y., for appellant. Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent Salvatore LaScala.
Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent Giuseppina LaScala.
Tammi D. Pere, West Hempstead, N.Y., for respondents Angela LaScala, Santina Genovese, Ignazio LaScala, and Salvatore Genovese.
In six related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from six orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), all dated October 23, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions.
ORDERED that the orders are 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 Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 A.D.3d 711, 712, 911 N.Y.S.2d 87). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the [trial] [c]ourt, 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 Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;see Matter of King v. Edwards, 92 A.D.3d 783, 784, 938 N.Y.S.2d 442). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish that the respondents committed the family offenses of attempted assault, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and disorderly conduct ( see Family Ct. Act § 812 ; cf. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00, 120.05, 240.20, 240.26).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petitions. DICKERSON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.