IN RE: MARISELA N. (2012)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection for two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832), including petitioner's testimony, supports the court's finding that respondent had committed acts that constitute the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812[1]; Penal Law § 240.26[3] ), warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 841). There is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of F.B. v. W.B., 248 A.D.2d 119 [1st Dept 1998] ).

The order of protection is valid despite the lack of a dispositional hearing. “There is no explicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under Family Court Act article 8 (Matter of Hazel P.R. v. Paul J.P., 34 AD3d 307, 308 [1st Dept 2006] ). In addition, respondent never demanded, or objected to the lack of, such a hearing (see Matter of Tonya B. v. Matthew B., 90 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2011] ). Moreover, since there is no other legal remedy available for the harassment proved against respondent and she “does not suggest any remedy other than issuance of an order of protection, a separate dispositional hearing would have served no purpose” (Matter of Annie C. v. Marcellus W., 278 A.D.2d 177, 177–178 [1st Dept 2000] ).