Smith v. Antonio

• Decision Date: 19 May 1997
• Citation: 658 N.Y.S.2d 962,239 A.D.2d 509
• Parties: In the Matter of Darlene SMITH, Respondent, v. Rudolfo ANTONIO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 962

658 N.Y.S.2d 962

239 A.D.2d 509

In the Matter of Darlene SMITH, Respondent, v. Rudolfo ANTONIO, Appellant.

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

May 19, 1997.

Jeffrey C. Bluth, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Larry S. Bachner, Kew Gardens, for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 to obtain an order of protection, Rudolfo Antonio appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hepner, J.), dated June 8, 1995, which, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, directed him not to "assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger or engage in disorderly conduct toward Petitioner".

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

We find no basis to disturb the Family Court's findings that the appellant committed acts which constituted a family offense under Family Court Act article 8. The question of whether the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve and the determination of the Family Court, as the trier of fact regarding credibility of witnesses, is entitled to great weight. The record supports the court's determination that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition, as amended (see, e.g., Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568; see also, Matter of Greenberg v. Greenberg, 226 A.D.2d 463, 640 N.Y.S.2d 805; see generally, People v. Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325, 310 N.Y.S.2d 303, 258 N.E.2d 711; Dioguardi v. City of New Rochelle, 179 A.D.2d 798, 578 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Early, 85 A.D.2d 752, 445 N.Y.S.2d 252).

MILLER, J.P., and ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.