IN RE: Arthur FLEMING (2008)

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the wife appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.), dated June 13, 2007, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed her to stay away from the husband until June 14, 2008.

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

The husband filed a family offense petition against the wife, seeking an order requiring her to stay away from him and the residence in which he was living, and requiring her to refrain from any acts or threats of physical violence.   Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the wife committed two separate family offenses of harassment in the second degree, and issued an order of protection.

The wife asserts, inter alia, that the Family Court improperly credited the husband's testimony, that his testimony was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other testimony and, in effect, that the husband failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that she committed two family offenses of harassment in the second degree.

 “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual determination to be resolved by the Family Court” (Matter of Robinson v. Bennett, 49 A.D.3d 652, 852 N.Y.S.2d 805).  “ ‘Where the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its factual determinations are afforded great weight on appeal’ ” (Matter of Hijri v. Fargaly, 49 A.D.3d 737, 854 N.Y.S.2d 190, quoting Matter of Spillman v. Spillman, 40 A.D.3d 770, 770, 833 N.Y.S.2d 907;  see Matter of Robinson v. Bennett, 49 A.D.3d 652, 852 N.Y.S.2d 805;  Matter of Larson v. Gilliam, 49 A.D.3d 650, 852 N.Y.S.2d 808).   Contrary to the wife's contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Family Court's determination that she committed two family offenses of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of the order of protection (see Family Ct. Act § 832;  Penal Law § 240.26[3];  Matter of Larson v. Gilliam, 49 A.D.3d 650, 852 N.Y.S.2d 808;  Matter of Robbins v. Robbins, 48 A.D.3d 822, 822, 851 N.Y.S.2d 877;  Matter of Rankoth v. Sloan, 44 A.D.3d 863, 864, 844 N.Y.S.2d 357;  Matter of Vankeuren v. Craft, 39 A.D.3d 763, 763-764, 832 N.Y.S.2d 444;  Matter of Santiago v. Friedman, 35 A.D.3d 482, 482, 824 N.Y.S.2d 723).

The wife's remaining contentions are without merit.