IN RE: BIANCA L. C. (2023)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Frishman, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2022, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent husband, committed a family offense of harassment in the second degree, granted a one-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court's determination that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (Family Ct Act § 832;  Penal Law § 240.26[3];  see Matter of Rosa G. v. Hipolito D., 215 A.D.3d 571, 187 N.Y.S.3d 615 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Although the Family Court did not specify which facts supported that finding, remand is not required because the record is sufficiently complete to allow this Court to make an independent review and draw its own conclusions (see Matter of Dayonna W. v. Jhon S., 201 A.D.3d 539, 540, 157 N.Y.S.3d 361 [1st Dept. 2022];  Matter of Allen v. Black, 275 A.D.2d 207, 209, 712 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept. 2000]).

Based on that independent review and accepting Family Court's credibility determinations, the fact-finding testimony demonstrates that respondent twice reported to Administration for Children's Services that petitioner was abusing one of the children, and on one occasion, he summoned an ambulance and told paramedics that petitioner required a psychiatric evaluation because she was threatening to poison his food and commit suicide.  The testimony and hospital records in evidence also demonstrate that all of respondent's allegations against petitioner were determined after investigation to be unfounded.  This evidence establishes that he engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts which alarmed or seriously annoyed petitioner and served no legitimate purpose (see Matter of Doris M. v. Yarenis P., 161 A.D.3d 502, 502–503, 76 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2018];  Matter of Edward B. v. Elizabeth T., 156 A.D.3d 423, 424, 64 N.Y.S.3d 519 [1st Dept. 2017]).  Furthermore, petitioner testified that she was scared, upset, and needed mental health therapy because of respondent's actions and the court properly inferred from those actions and the surrounding circumstances that he intended to cause these effects (see Matter of Giovanni De M. v. Nick W., 200 A.D.3d 517, 518, 155 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2021]).

The record supports Family Court's determination that a one-year order of protection is warranted.  The court's credibility determinations, made in connection with this determination, should be accorded deference, and we find no basis to disturb them (see Matter of Lisa S. v. William V., 95 A.D.3d 666, 943 N.Y.S.2d 886 [1st Dept. 2012]).  The issuance of the order of protection was appropriate because it will likely be helpful in eradicating the root of the family disturbance and protect petitioner (see Matter of Sabrina T. v. Cleveland T., 129 A.D.3d 613, 10 N.Y.S.3d 868 [1st Dept. 2015]).