Ordered that the order of protection and the order of disposition are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
In a family offense proceeding, the allegations asserted in a petition seeking the issuance of an order of protection must be supported by "a fair preponderance of the evidence" (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Patton v Torres, 38 AD3d 667, 668; Matter of Dabbene v Dabbene, 297 AD2d 812; Matter of Hogan v Hogan, 271 AD2d 533).
The petitioner failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant's acts on December 7, 2007, of, inter alia, pounding his fist on a table in order to emphasize a point made during an animated discussion, constituted disorderly conduct ( see Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law § 240.20; Matter of Bartley v Bartley, 48 AD3d 678, 678-679; cf. Matter of Larson v Gilliam, 49 AD3d 650).
The petitioner also failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant had formed the requisite intent "to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm" the petitioner when he made a telephone call to her on December 16, 2007, seeking to go to her home to retrieve certain personal items previously left there (Penal Law § 240.30 [a]). Thus, the evidence proffered at the hearing failed to establish that the appellant committed the family offense of aggravated harassment ( see Penal Law § 240.30 [a]; Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 32 AD3d 521; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860, 861).
Since the record does not support the Family Court's determination that the appellant committed family offenses warranting the issuance of the order of protection ( see Family Ct Act § 812; § 832, 841; Matter of Garland v Garland, 3 AD3d 496; Matter of London v Blazer, 2 AD3d 860; Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden, 298 AD2d 390; Matter of Anonymous v Anonymous, 23 AD3d 461), the order of protection and the order of disposition must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.