IN RE: Kenneth SHAW (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gregory L. Gliedman, J.), dated October 18, 2024.  The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against his brother.  After a hearing, the Family Court determined that the petitioner, who was the only witness, was not credible.  In an order dated October 18, 2024, the court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The petitioner appeals.

The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (id. § 832;  see Matter of Singh v. Kaur, 213 A.D.3d 771, 771, 181 N.Y.S.3d 469).  “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal, such that they will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Porter v. Moore, 149 A.D.3d 1082, 1083, 53 N.Y.S.3d 174;  see Matter of Limanov v. Limanov, 225 A.D.3d 872, 208 N.Y.S.3d 654).

Here, the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his brother committed a family offense was supported by the record (see Matter of Paek v. Alicea, 225 A.D.3d 877, 878–879, 208 N.Y.S.3d 673;  Matter of Goldring v. Sprei, 121 A.D.3d 894, 895, 994 N.Y.S.2d 670).  We discern no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination (see Matter of Townes v. Diggs, 216 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 189 N.Y.S.3d 285;  M.B. v. L.T., 152 A.D.3d 475, 476, 58 N.Y.S.3d 491).  Accordingly, the court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.