Opinion
April 26, 1999
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.).
Ordered that the. orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the orders of protection against the appellant have expired, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not academic (see, Matter of Tibichrani v. Debs, 230 A.D.2d 746; Matter of Bart v. Bart, 219 A.D.2d 710). However, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determinations. The question of whether it was the appellant or Marvin Dendy and Zina Melendez-Dendy who committed the acts of harassment was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve (see, Matter of Campbell v. Desir, 251 A.D.2d 402;. Matter of Platsky v. Platsky, 237 A.D.2d 610, 611). As the trier of fact, the Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of F.B. v. W.B., 248 A.D.2d 119; Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767). Its determination in that regard is not against the weight of the credible evidence. Therefore, we decline to disturb the court's decision to grant the petitions for orders of protection in favor of Marvin Dendy and Zina Melendez-Dendy and to deny the cross petitions of the appellant.
Furthermore the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's motion, in effect, for renewal on the ground of newly-discovered evidence since the evidence in question was available at the original hearings and merely related to the credibility of the parties (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; Matter of Jenna R., 207 A.D.2d 403, 404).
The appellant's "remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.