IN RE: Eirena BYKHOVSKY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alexandra Byun, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 28, 2024.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, found that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the mother and the parties’ older child and against the father.

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

The parties have two children together, born in 2018 and 2020.  In 2024, the mother commenced this family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the father, alleging that he committed various family offenses against her and the older child.  After a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, found that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the mother and the older child and against the father.  The father appeals.

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832).  “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and its determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” (Matter of Malcolm v. Arnold, 238 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 234 N.Y.S.3d 274 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Mills v. Frost, 237 A.D.3d 715, 716, 230 N.Y.S.3d 681).

Here, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the Family Court's finding that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20;  Family Ct Act § 812[1];  Matter of Mills v. Frost, 237 A.D.3d at 716, 230 N.Y.S.3d 681;  Matter of Lynch v. Jimenez, 230 A.D.3d 496, 498, 217 N.Y.S.3d 132).  The court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject incident, and the court's determination to credit the testimony of the mother, the maternal grandfather, and a police officer over the testimony of the father and the paternal grandfather is supported by the record (see Matter of Malcolm v. Arnold, 238 A.D.3d at 1043, 234 N.Y.S.3d 274;  Matter of Mills v. Frost, 237 A.D.3d at 716, 230 N.Y.S.3d 681.

The father's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.