Opinion
2012-06-20
In the Matter of Shahin SULTANA, respondent, v. Abdul MALEK, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Abdul Malek, appellant, v. Shahin Sultana, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Rhonda R. Weir, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Abdul Malek appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.H.O.), dated May 26, 2011, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, and (2) an order of protection of the same court dated June 7, 2011, which, upon a finding that he committed certain family offenses, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Shahin Sultana for a period up to and including May 25, 2013.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 26, 2011, is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, whose determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference ( see Matter of Harry v. Harry, 85 A.D.3d 790, 790, 924 N.Y.S.2d 816;Family Ct. Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Kaur v. Singh, 73 A.D.3d 1178, 900 N.Y.S.2d 895;Matter of Creighton v. Whitmore, 71 A.D.3d 1141, 898 N.Y.S.2d 585). Here, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports a determination that the appellant committed acts constituting certain family offenses warranting the issuance of an order of protection ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 812; Penal Law § 120.00[1]; § 240.26[3] ).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.