IN RE: David WISSINK (2004)

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jane Wissink appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated May 9, 2003, which, after a hearing, in effect, found that she committed a family offense and directed her to observe for a period of one year the conditions of an order of protection of the same court dated April 1, 2003.

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

 Although the order of protection has expired, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, this appeal is not academic (see Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 640 N.Y.S.2d 568;  Matter of Charlene J.R. v. Walter A.M., 307 A.D.2d 1038, 763 N.Y.S.2d 778;  see also Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250;  Matter of Williams v. Cornelius, 76 N.Y.2d 542, 561 N.Y.S.2d 701, 563 N.E.2d 15).

 The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Phillips v. Laland, 4 A.D.3d 529, 771 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 609, 786 N.Y.S.2d 812, 820 N.E.2d 291) that the appellant committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree, thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct. Act §§ 812, 832;  Penal Law § 240.26 [1];  Matter of Pesce v. Pesce, 223 A.D.2d 647, 637 N.Y.S.2d 18;  cf. Matter of Cavanaugh v. Madden, 298 A.D.2d 390, 392, 751 N.Y.S.2d 225).

The Family Court was confronted with issues of credibility as to whether the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition.   The Family Court's credibility determination is entitled to great weight and we find no reason to disturb it (see Matter of Smith v. Antonio, 239 A.D.2d 509, 658 N.Y.S.2d 962).