Case ID: ad3d_121/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Aaron Goldring, Appellant, v Joseph Sprei, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Aaron Goldring, Appellant, v Moshe Goldberger, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Aaron Goldring, Appellant, v Chaim Hersh Kahan, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
    [994 NYS2d 670]
   In three related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Krauss, J.), dated February 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed his family offense petition against Joseph Sprei, (2) an order of the same court dated March 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed his family offense petition against Moshe Goldberger, and (3) an order of the same court dated March 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed his family offense petition against Chaim Hersh Kahan.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition asserted against Joseph Sprei upon finding that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sprei committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense (see Family Ct Act § 832). As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see Matter of Bongiorno v Bongiorno, 1 AD3d 511, 512 [2003]). Its determination should be upheld unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Washington v Washington, 32 AD3d 964 [2006]). We find no basis to disturb its determination here (see Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629 [2004]).

The Family Court properly dismissed the respective petitions asserted against Moshe Goldberger and Chaim Hersh Kahan. Accepting the evidence proferred by the petitioner as true and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, it failed to establish, prima facie, that Goldberger or Kahan committed a family offense (see Matter of Stephens v Stephens, 106 AD3d 748 [2013]; Matter of Sellers v Sellers-Boykin, 72 AD3d 832 [2010]).

Rivera, J.E, Hall, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.