IN RE: Magaly SANTOS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Ovidio Matos appeals from two orders of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), both dated November 6, 2024.  The first order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Ovidio Matos committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from Magaly Santos until and including November 6, 2026.  The second order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Ovidio Matos committed the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, directed him, among other things, to stay away from Emily Matos until and including November 6, 2026.

ORDERED that the orders of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Magaly Santos (hereinafter the mother) and Ovidio Matos (hereinafter the father) are the parents of an adult child, Emily Santos (hereinafter the daughter).  In April 2024, the mother and the daughter commenced these related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the father.  After a hearing, the Family Court found that the father committed the family offense of disorderly conduct against the mother and the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree against the daughter.  The court issued orders of protection directing the father, inter alia, to stay away from the mother and the daughter until and including November 6, 2026.  The father appeals.

“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the family offense by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Nunez v. Spellen, 235 A.D.3d 874, 875, 228 N.Y.S.3d 616;  see Family Ct Act § 832;  Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d 337, 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537).  “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal” (Matter of Nunez v. Spellen, 235 A.D.3d at 875, 228 N.Y.S.3d 616;  see Matter of Lederman v. Lederman, 208 A.D.3d 483, 484, 171 N.Y.S.3d 366).  Where, as here, the court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject events and chose to credit the testimony of one party over that of the other, its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Mohammed v. Mohammed, 174 A.D.3d 615, 615–616, 101 N.Y.S.3d 884;  Matter of Diaz v. Rodriguez, 164 A.D.3d 1340, 1340, 81 N.Y.S.3d 756).

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 against the mother (Penal Law § 240.20;  see generally Matter of Cassie v. Cassie, 109 A.D.3d at 340, 969 N.Y.S.2d 537) and the family offenses of stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree against the daughter (Penal Law §§ 120.45, 240.26).  The court's determination was based upon its credibility assessments and is supported by the record (see Matter of Mohammed v. Mohammed, 174 A.D.3d at 616, 101 N.Y.S.3d 884;  Matter of Zhuo Hong Zheng v. Hsin Cheng, 144 A.D.3d 1166, 1167, 42 N.Y.S.3d 290).  Thus, the issuance of the orders of protection was warranted.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.