IN RE: Alexis ROMAN (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated April 18, 2024.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, after a hearing, found that the mother committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the father and the parties’ child and against the mother for a period of two years.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties are the parents of a child born in 2021.  In 2024, the father commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the mother, alleging that she had committed various family offenses against him and the child.  After a hearing, during which both parties testified, the Family Court found that a fair preponderance of the evidence established that the mother committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and directed the issuance of an order of protection.  The mother appeals.

“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d 753, 754, 30 N.Y.S.3d 923;  see Family Ct Act § 832;  Matter of Buchovska v. Kamolov, 209 A.D.3d 857, 857, 175 N.Y.S.3d 483).  “Whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination of credibility issues is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Davis v. Wright, 140 A.D.3d at 754, 30 N.Y.S.3d 923).

Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the mother committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[3];  see Matter of Mitchell–George v. George, 234 A.D.3d 969, 969, 227 N.Y.S.3d 162;  Matter of Ramos v. West, 234 A.D.3d 773, 774, 225 N.Y.S.3d 342).

The mother's contention that the Family Court was biased against her in the conduct of the hearing is unpreserved for appellate review.  “A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself” (Matter of Freyer v. Macruari, 234 A.D.3d 755, 758, 224 N.Y.S.3d 564 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the “inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court's ‘bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party’ ” (Matter of Goundan v. Goundan, 210 A.D.3d 1087, 1089, 179 N.Y.S.3d 694, quoting Matter of Bowe v. Bowe, 124 A.D.3d 645, 646, 1 N.Y.S.3d 301).  Here, the record demonstrates that the court listened to the testimony, treated the parties fairly, and did not have a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing (see Matter of Freyer v. Macruari, 234 A.D.3d at 758, 224 N.Y.S.3d 564;  Matter of Goundan v. Goundan, 210 A.D.3d at 1089, 179 N.Y.S.3d 694).

The mother's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.