Velazquez v. Haffey

• Decision Date: 22 January 2014
• Citation: 978 N.Y.S.2d 861,113 A.D.3d 783,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00366
• Parties: In the Matter of Christina VELAZQUEZ, appellant, v. Brian Patrick HAFFEY, Jr., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

113 A.D.3d 783

978 N.Y.S.2d 861

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00366

In the Matter of Christina VELAZQUEZ, appellant,

v.Brian Patrick HAFFEY, Jr., respondent.

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

Jan. 22, 2014.

Jeffrey S. Schecter & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Kara K. Miller of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph M. Clark, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent.

Cynthia Holfester–Neugebauer, Sea Cliff, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated November 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.

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

“A family offense must be established by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence’ ” ( Matter of Alam v. Alam, 108 A.D.3d 665, 666, 968 N.Y.S.2d 403, quoting Family Ct. Act § 832). “Where, as here, the Family Court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal unless they were clearly unsupported by the record” ( Matter of Harris v. Harris, 59 A.D.3d 444, 444, 871 N.Y.S.2d 915; see Matter of Akter v. Patwary, 80 A.D.3d 759, 916 N.Y.S.2d 779; Matter of Krystal M., 3 A.D.3d 498, 499, 769 N.Y.S.2d 757; Matter of St. Denis v. St. Denis, 1 A.D.3d 370, 766 N.Y.S.2d 874). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed a family offense ( see Matter of Chavez–Gonzalez v. Tran, 107 A.D.3d 983, 966 N.Y.S.2d 877; Matter of Krisztina K. v. John S., 103 A.D.3d 724, 960 N.Y.S.2d 144; Matter of Harris v. Harris, 59 A.D.3d at 444–445, 871 N.Y.S.2d 915).

Moreover, there was no evidence in the record that the attorney for the child failed to diligently represent the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Gray v. Jones, 251 A.D.2d 765, 767, 674 N.Y.S.2d 174; Matter of Burr v. Emmett, 249 A.D.2d 614, 615–616, 670 N.Y.S.2d 637; Matter of Zirkind v. Zirkind, 218 A.D.2d 745, 746, 630 N.Y.S.2d 570).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.