Gonzalez v. Acosta
901 N.Y.S.2d 332
N.Y. App. Div.
2010
Check Treatment

In the Matter of ROSITA GONZALEZ, Respondent, v EMMANUEL ACOSTA, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

February 16, 2010

901 N.Y.S.2d 332

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

;
). 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
). 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;
;
).

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

;
; cf.
).

The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.