Daoud v. Daoud

The allegations in a family offense proceeding 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 Aruti v Aruti, 88 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Matter of Ungar v Ungar, 80 AD3d 771 [2011]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 72 AD3d 834, 835 [2010]). “Only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-finding hearing” (Family Ct Act § 834; see Matter of Belinda YY. v Lee ZZ., 74 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2010]).

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition consisted solely of inadmissible hearsay. The petitioner therefore failed to establish the allegations in the petition by competent evidence (see Family Ct Act § 834; Matter of Belinda YY. v Lee ZZ., 74 AD3d at 1395; Dorene L. v Dhaneswar R., 29 Misc 3d 462 [2010], affd 89 AD3d 428 [2011]). Accordingly, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.