Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court; its determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712; Matter of Fleming v Fleming, 52 AD3d 600; Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629; Matter of Topper v Topper, 271 AD2d 613).
Here, the appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed acts constituting a cognizable family offense ( see Family Ct Act § 812; § 832; Matter of Ann P. v Nicholas C.P., 44 AD3d 776; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861). Since the allegations in the petition were not established, the petition was properly dismissed ( see Family Ct Act § 841 [a]; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d at 622; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d 496).