IN RE: DANIELLE S. (2007)

 Respondent erroneously appealed from the fact-finding order rather than from the two orders of protection issued following the dispositional hearing.   Nevertheless, by a prior order of this Court, we exercised our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeals as taken from the orders of protection, which constitute orders of disposition pursuant to Family Court Act § 841(d) (see Matter of Ariel C., 248 A.D.2d 976, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1006, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 801, 677 N.Y.S.2d 71, 699 N.E.2d 431;  Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 529 N.Y.S.2d 658;  see also CPLR 5520[c] ).

Family Court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight, and the record supports the court's finding that petitioner was a more credible witness than respondent (see Matter of Charles v. Charles, 21 A.D.3d 487, 799 N.Y.S.2d 822).   The record also supports the court's determination that petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed acts constituting the crime of assault in the third degree, thus warranting the issuance of orders of protection in favor of the parties' children and petitioner (see Family Ct. Act § 812[1];  Matter of Abbott v. Burnes, 27 A.D.3d 555, 813 N.Y.S.2d 133).   Contrary to the contention of respondent, evidence that he committed acts of violence against petitioner in the presence of each child warrants the issuance of the order of protection in favor of the children (see Matter of Charlene J.R. v. Walter A.M., 307 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, 763 N.Y.S.2d 778;  see also Matter of Machukas v. Wagner, 246 A.D.2d 840, 842-843, 667 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 813, 674 N.Y.S.2d 278, 697 N.E.2d 179).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: