Dendy v. Bonelli

• Decision Date: 26 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. 4,No. 3,No. 2,No. 1,1,2,3,4
• Citation: 687 N.Y.S.2d 269,260 AD2d 633
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3731 In the Matter of Marvin DENDY, respondent, v. Anette BONELLI, appellant. (Proceeding) In the Matter of Zina Melendez-Dendy, respondent, v. Anette Bonelli, appellant. (Proceeding) In the Matter of Anette Bonelli, appellant, v. Marvin Dendy, respondent. (Proceeding) In the Matter of Anette Bonelli, appellant, v. Zina Melendez-Dendy, respondent. (Proceeding)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 269

687 N.Y.S.2d 269

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3731

In the Matter of Marvin DENDY, respondent, v. Anette BONELLI, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Zina Melendez-Dendy, respondent, v. Anette Bonelli, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)

In the Matter of Anette Bonelli, appellant, v. Marvin Dendy, respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)

In the Matter of Anette Bonelli, appellant, v. Zina Melendez-Dendy, respondent. (Proceeding No. 4)

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 26, 1999.

Anette Bonelli, Valley Stream, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Richard Biaggi, New York, N.Y. (Theresa Begley of counsel), for respondent Marvin Dendy.

In four proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Anette Bonelli appeals from (1) two orders of the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), both dated December 16, 1997, which, after a hearing granted the petitions of Marvin Dendy and Zina Melendez-Dendy for orders of protection against her, (2) two orders the same court, both entered January 13, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied her petitions for orders of protection against Marvin Dendy and Zina Melendez-Dendy, and (3) an order of the same court, dated April 14, 1998, which denied her motion, in effect, for renewal.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the orders of protection against the appellant have expired, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not academic (see, Matter of Tibichrani v. Debs, 230 A.D.2d 746, 646 N.Y.S.2d 360; Matter of Bart v. Bart, 219 A.D.2d 710, 631 N.Y.S.2d 542). However, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determinations. The question of whether it was the appellant or Marvin Dendy and Zina Melendez-Dendy who committed the acts of harassment was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve (see, Matter of Campbell v. Desir, 251 A.D.2d 402, 672 N.Y.S.2d 818; Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 611, 655 N.Y.S.2d 650). As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of F.B. v. W.B., 248 A.D.2d 119, 669 N.Y.S.2d 551; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568). Its determination in that regard is not against the weight of the credible evidence. Therefore, we decline to disturb the court's decision to grant the petitions for orders...