Opinion
15761-15761A Dkt. Nos. V-35607-18/18A, V-35607-18/18B, V-35607-18/19C, O-35606/18, O-00525-19 Case Nos. 2021-01139, 2021-01138, 2021-01137
04-21-2022
In the Matter of DARLENE H., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ABDUS R., Respondent–Appellant. In the Matter of Abdus R., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Darlene H., Respondent–Respondent.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant. Bruce A. Young, Brooklyn, for respondent. Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel J. Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.
Bruce A. Young, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel J. Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2021, on respondent father's default, to the extent they, in effect, denied the father's request for an adjournment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
No appeal lies from an order entered on default ( CPLR 5511 ; see Matter of Derick B. v. Catherine L., 155 A.D.3d 511, 512, 65 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2017] ). However, the denial of father's request for an adjournment is appealable because that request was "the subject of contest below" (see James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n. 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 [1967] ).
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's request for an adjournment when he failed to appear by video for a continuation of his testimony on his petition (see Matter of Steven B., 6 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646 [2006] ; Matter of Tony U. v. Amy J.P., 179 A.D.3d 467, 467, 113 N.Y.S.3d 551 [1st Dept. 2020] ). The matter had already been adjourned for four months at the father's request, after extended delay due to the pandemic, and further protraction of the custody and visitation aspects of the proceedings was not in the child's best interests (see Matter of Nautica Skyy W. [Amber NY–Cole W.], 198 A.D.3d 589, 589, 152 N.Y.S.3d 912 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Furthermore, the father had been warned of the consequences of failing to appear by video and was given ample time to find access to a computer or other device that would permit him to participate by video (see Matter of William Jamal W. [Marjorie C.], 89 A.D.3d 502, 502, 932 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1st Dept. 2011] ).