In the Matter of Maria Aruti v. Aruti

• Decision Date: 04 October 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07036,88 A.D.3d 700,930 N.Y.S.2d 481
• Parties: In the Matter of Maria ARUTI, appellant,v.Ike ARUTI, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 700

930 N.Y.S.2d 481

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07036

In the Matter of Maria ARUTI, appellant,

v.Ike ARUTI, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 4, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERETennille 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.