Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Anne M. Serby, Rockaway Park, N.Y., for respondent.
David G. Standel, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Jolly, J.), dated July 19, 2012, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” ( Matter of Saldivar v. Cabrera, 109 A.D.3d 831, 831, 971 N.Y.S.2d 310; seeFamily Ct. Act § 832; Matter of Bazante v. Bazante, 107 A.D.3d 707, 707, 966 N.Y.S.2d 483). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” ( Matter of Saldivar v. Cabrera, 109 A.D.3d at 832, 971 N.Y.S.2d 310; see Matter of Winfield v. Gammons, 105 A.D.3d 753, 754, 963 N.Y.S.2d 272). Here, the Family Court was presented with sharply conflicting testimony as to whether the respondent committed the family offenses at issue. The Family Court's determination that the petitioner failed to establish that a family offense was committed against her was based on its credibility assessments, and is supported by the record ( see Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d 1057, 1058, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226; Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32, 44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court's determination.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.