Howell v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howell v. Howell

105 A.D.3d 847, 961 N.Y.S.2d 805

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 2013·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Cannataro, J.), dated April 4, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition and vacated a temporary order of protection against the respondent.

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

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding, 101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]), “and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010]).

Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committed an act constituting a family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 49 AD3d 652 [2008]; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d 675 [2005]). The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition and vacated the temporary or[848]*848der of protection against the respondent.

Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Cannataro, J.), dated April 4, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition and vacated a temporary order of protection against the respondent.

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

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding, 101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; Matter of Halper v Halper, 61 AD3d 687 [2009]), “and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71 AD3d at 1141; see Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010]).

Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committed an act constituting a family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 49 AD3d 652 [2008]; Matter of Waaldijk-Howell v Howell, 22 AD3d 675 [2005]). The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition and vacated the temporary or[848]*848der of protection against the respondent.

Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Howell v. Howell, 105 A.D.3d 847, 961 N.Y.S.2d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

105 A.D.3d 847 (Howell v. Howell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related