From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cabeza v. Cabeza

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 12, 2013
107 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-12

In the Matter of William E. CABEZA, respondent, v. William Jeisy CABEZA, appellant.

John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant. Stewart N. Altman, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.


John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant. Stewart N. Altman, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, William Jeisy Cabeza appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Jolly, J.), dated July 16, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from William E. Cabeza, and to refrain from harassing William E. Cabeza.

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

The appellant contends that the Family Court erred in creditingthe testimony against him, so as to find that he committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and to grant an order of protection against him. “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 witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record” (Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 43–44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;see Matter of Winfield v. Gammons, 105 A.D.3d 753, 963 N.Y.S.2d 272;Matter of Clarke–Golding v. Golding, 101 A.D.3d 1117, 956 N.Y.S.2d 553). Here, the Family Court was presented with conflicting testimony as to whether the appellant committed the family offense at issue. The Family Court's determination that the appellant had committed the family offense was based upon its assessment of the credibility of the parties and is supported by the record ( see Matter of Winfield v. Gammons, 105 A.D.3d 753, 963 N.Y.S.2d 272;Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d 689, 897 N.Y.S.2d 655).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination.

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ROMAN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cabeza v. Cabeza

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 12, 2013
107 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Cabeza v. Cabeza

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of William E. CABEZA, respondent, v. William Jeisy CABEZA…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 12, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
966 N.Y.S.2d 679
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4331

Citing Cases

Saldivar v. Cabrera

3d 739, 740, 931 N.Y.S.2d 892). A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence…

Pierre v. Dal

In a family offense proceeding, the allegations must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence”…