ASGEDOM v. ASGEDOM

Ordered that the orders are 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 Kraus v Kraus, 26 AD3d 494, 495; Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmokamed, 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 the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Vankeuren v Craft, 39 AD3d 763, 763-764). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in making its determination without conducting an in camera interview of the parties' infant child ( see Matter of Cardarelli v Cardarelli, 277 AD2d 225, 225-226).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.