Matter of Amato v Amato

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Amato v Amato 2012 NY Slip Op 08115 Decided on November 28, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 28, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2011-10954
(Docket No. O-9377-11)

[*1]In the Matter of Deborah L. Amato, appellant,

v

Raffaele A. Amato, Jr., respondent. Susan A. DeNatale, Mastic, N.Y., for appellant.




DECISION & ORDER

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 28, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied her petition and vacated all orders of protection issued against the respondent in this matter.

ORDERED that the order 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, and that court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed if supported by the record" (Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44; see Matter of Medranda v Mondelli, 74 AD3d 972; Matter of Delano v Desimone, 60 AD3d 673, 673-674). Here, the Family Court was presented with the sharply conflicting testimony of the parties regarding the events that occurred on the subject date, and it chose to credit the respondent's account in finding that a family offense had not been established (see e.g. Matter of Sepulveda v Perez, 90 AD3d 1057, 1058; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d at 44; Matter of Khaykin v Kanayeva, 47 AD3d 817, 818). Since the court's determination is supported by evidence in the record, we discern no basis to disturb it.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.