Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well-settled that issues of credibility are properly determined by the hearing court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Shoulson v. Shoulson, 213 A.D.2d 466; City of New York v. Bergman, 210 A.D.2d 369; DiSalvo v. Ordway, 208 A.D.2d 798; Vega v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 537; Devlin v Putorti, 183 A.D.2d 804; Yoba v. Yoba, 183 A.D.2d 418). The evidence adduced at the hearing in this case supports the Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent committed the acts enumerated in Family Court Act § 821. Thus, the issuance of an order of protection was not warranted ( see, Family Ct Act § 812; Matter of Holcomb v. Holcomb, 176 A.D.2d 409; Matter of Rogers v. Rogers, 161 A.D.2d 766; Merola v. Merola, 146 A.D.2d 611).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.