Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 25 January 2017
• Citation: 45 N.Y.S.3d 551,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00469,146 A.D.3d 954
• Parties: In the Matter of Gary JOHNSON, appellant, v. Everette JOHNSON, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 954
45 N.Y.S.3d 551
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00469

In the Matter of Gary JOHNSON, appellant,
v.
Everette JOHNSON, respondent.

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

Jan. 25, 2017.

45 N.Y.S.3d 551

Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.

Olga J. Rodriguez, Forest Hills, NY, for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

146 A.D.3d 954

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anne–Marie Jolly, J.), dated October 5, 2015. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petitioner's family offense petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that the respondent, his brother, committed various family offenses against him. After a hearing, the Family Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

146 A.D.3d 955

The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be " supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct. Act § 832 ; see Matter of Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d 753, 754, 30 N.Y.S.3d 923 ; Matter of Giresi–Palazzolo v. Palazzolo, 127 A.D.3d 752, 752, 7 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Matter of Tulshi v. Tulshi, 118 A.D.3d 716, 716, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537 ). "The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to

45 N.Y.S.3d 552

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 Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d at 754, 30 N.Y.S.3d 923; Matter of Giresi–Palazzolo v. Palazzolo, 127 A.D.3d at 752, 7 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Matter of Tulshi v. Tulshi, 118 A.D.3d at 716, 986 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Matter of Bah v. Bah, 112 A.D.3d 921, 922, 978 N.Y.S.2d 301 ).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish, by a fair...