SBLENDORIO v. D'AGOSTINO

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court ( see Matter of Asgedom v Asgedom, 51 AD3d 787; Matter of Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495; Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed, 23 AD3d 562). The Family Court's credibility determination is entitled to great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Hall v Hall, 45 AD3d 842; Matter of Pastore v Russo, 38 AD3d 556, 557; Matter of Meiling Zhang v Jinghong Zhu, 36 AD3d 704). Here, the fair preponderance of the credible evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported the Family Court's determination that in July 2004, the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Asgedom v Asgedom, 51 AD3d 787). There is no merit to the appellant's contention that he was prejudiced by the Family Court's failure to hold a dispositional hearing before issuing a two-year order of protection. The appellant contends that he was prevented from admitting a therapist's report and a probation report for review by the court at disposition. On the facts of this case, the Family Court's failure to hold a dispositional hearing does not require reversal ( see Matter of Hassett v Hassett, 4 AD3d 527; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812, 813; Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W., 278 AD2d 177; Matter of Quintana v Quintana, 237 AD2d 130). In any event, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the Family Court's disposition awarding the petitioner and the parties' child a two-year order of protection was not against the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Tyquan Y., 55 AD3d 843; Matter of Donta J., 35 AD3d 740).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.