Court Opinion

ID: 9369463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 20:06:45.9326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.356154
License: Public Domain

Matter of Singh v Kaur (2023 NY Slip Op 00669)

Matter of Singh v Kaur

2023 NY Slip Op 00669

Decided on February 8, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 8, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2022-01369
 (Docket No. O-4028-21)

[*1]In the Matter of Manohar Singh, appellant,
vKamaljit Kaur, respondent.

Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.

DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Mildred T. Negron, J.), dated February 25, 2022. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against his spouse, alleging, inter alia, that she had attempted to strike him with a rolling pin. The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be "supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Saquipay v Puzhi, 160 AD3d 879, 879). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court (see Matter of Mullings v Abrahams, 171 AD3d 1070, 1070-1071; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43; Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842). Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court's finding that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that a family offense was committed by the respondent is supported by the record (see Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d at 44; Matter of Ortiz v Ortiz, 2 AD3d 1236).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court