IN RE: Maria Aruti (2011)

Submitted—September 20, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Jackman–Brown, J.), dated August 21, 2009, which, after a fact-finding hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832;  Matter of Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621).   The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Pearlman v. Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712;  Matter of Fleming v. Fleming, 52 AD3d 600;  Matter of Rivera v. Quinones–Rivera, 15 AD3d 583;  Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 AD3d 629;  Matter of Topper v. Topper, 271 A.D.2d 613).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 812[1];  § 832;  Matter of Ann P. v. Nicholas C.P., 44 AD3d 776;  Matter of London v. Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861).   Since the allegations in the petition were not established, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 841[a];  Matter of Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d at 622;  Matter of King v. Flowers, 13 AD3d 629;  Matter of Garland v. Garland, 3 AD3d 496).

MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, ENG and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court