Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Rosita Gonzalez, respondent, v Emmanuel Acosta, appellant.
Submitted-April 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Emmanuel Acosta appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated May 12, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding, in effect, that he committed the family offense of harassment, inter alia, directed that he stay 100 yards away from Rosita Gonzalez for a period of two years.
ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's finding, in effect, that the appellant committed acts constituting the family offense of harassment in the second degree, thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Matter of Halper v. Halper, 61 AD3d 687; Matter of Sblendorio v. D'Agostino, 60 AD3d 773). The appellant challenges the credibility of the petitioner's testimony that he 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 that determination (see Matter of Phillips v. Luland, 4 AD3d 529). Moreover, the provision in the order of protection requiring the appellant to stay away from the church which the petitioner attends was reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection and to end the family disruption (see Family Ct Act § 812[2][b]; § 842; Matter of Mitchell v. Muhammed, 275 A.D.2d 783, 783-783; Matter of Amy Cohen L. v. Howard N.L., 222 A.D.2d 677).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, under the facts of this case, the Family Court's failure to hold a dispositional hearing does not require reversal (see Matter of Hassett v. Hassett, 4 AD3d 527; Matter of Dabbene v. Dabbene, 297 A.D.2d 812, 812-813; cf. Matter of Alice C. v. Joseph C., 212 A.D.2d 698).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, MILLER and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-05666 (Docket No. O-3383-09)
Decided: May 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)