IN RE TINA MINUS

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The finding that the father committed acts which constitute a cognizable family offense of aggravated harassment in the second degree was supported by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence in the record ( see People v Shack, 86 NY2d 529, 541; Matter of Melissa K v Brian K, 72 AD3d 1129, 1133; Matter of Schwartz v Sicular, 72 AD3d 1101; Matter of Boua TT. v Quamy UU., 66 AD3d 1165, 1166; Matter of Larson v Gilliam, 49 AD3d 650; Matter of Fiore v Fiore, 34 AD3d 803; People v Coyle, 186 Misc 2d 772). The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in crediting the mother's testimony ( see Matter of Rivera v Quinones-Rivera, 15 AD3d 583; Matter of King v Flowers, 13 AD3d 629; Matter of Marino v Marino, 13 AD3d 537). There is no merit to the father's contention that the Family Court failed to adequately state the facts it deemed essential to its determination ( see CPLR 4213 [b]).

Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly suspended the father's visitation with the parties' children pending his completion of 10 sessions of a domestic abuse awareness program ( see Zafran v Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Matter of Irwin v Schmidt, 236 AD2d 401; Landau v Landau, 214 AD2d 541; Matter of Hughes v Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449; cf. Matter of Grassi v Grassi, 28 AD3d 482; Matter of Williams v O'Toole, 4 AD3d 371, 372; Pudalov v Pudalov, 308 AD2d 524).