Ordered that the order of protection 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 Nelson-Waller v Waller, 60 AD3d 1068). "`The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court'" ( Matter of Nusbaum v Nusbaum, 59 AD3d 725, quoting Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495). The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses must be given great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Hunt v Hunt, 51 AD3d 924, 925).
Here, the fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Sblendorio v D'Agostino, 60 AD3d 773; Matter of Robbins v Robbins, 48 AD3d 822). Moreover, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances ( see Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]; Matter of Flascher v Flascher, 298 AD2d 393). Accordingly, the Family Court properly issued an order of protection to remain in effect until February 4, 2014 ( see Family Ct Act § 842).