Marte v. Biondo
| Decision Date | 27 March 2013 |
| Citation | 960 N.Y.S.2d 914,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02077,104 A.D.3d 947 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Lucia MARTE, appellant, v. Mariano BIONDO, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.
Tammi D. Pere, West Hempstead, N.Y., for respondent.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated January 11, 2012, as, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed so much of her petition as alleged that Mariano Biondo committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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 Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal ( see Matter of Smith v. Amedee, 101 A.D.3d 1033, 956 N.Y.S.2d 172;Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly determined that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct ( see Penal Law §§ 240.26, 240.20; Mamantov v. Mamantov, 86 A.D.3d 540, 541, 927 N.Y.S.2d 140;Matter of Cavanaugh v. Madden, 298 A.D.2d 390, 391–392, 751 N.Y.S.2d 225).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed so much of the petition as alleged that Mariano Biondo committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Dennis X.G.D.V.
...considerable deference on appeal (see Matter of Arthur G. [Tiffany M.], 112 A.D.3d 925, 926, 978 N.Y.S.2d 286 ; Matter of Marte v. Biondo, 104 A.D.3d 947, 960 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; Matter of Aranova v. Aranov, 77 A.D.3d 740, 741, 909 N.Y.S.2d 125 ), where, as here, the Family Court's credibility d......
-
Lew v. Lew
...874 N.Y.S.2d 501). Moreover, “a court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or [104 A.D.3d 947]reapplication for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation” ( Matt......
-
In re Dennis X.G.D.V.
...considerable deference on appeal (see Matter of Arthur G. [Tiffany M.], 112 A.D.3d 925, 926, 978 N.Y.S.2d 286 ; Matter of Marte v. Biondo, 104 A.D.3d 947, 960 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; Matter of Aranova v. Aranov, 77 A.D.3d 740, 741, 909 N.Y.S.2d 125 ), where, as here, the Family Court's credibility d......
-
Hubbard v. Deleon
...the evidence ( seeFamily Court Act § 832; Matter of Chu Man Woo v. Qiong Yun Xi, 106 A.D.3d 818, 964 N.Y.S.2d 647;Matter of Marte v. Biondo, 104 A.D.3d 947, 960 N.Y.S.2d 914). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court,......