Opinion
2012-09854, Docket No. B-16429-10.
10-15-2014
In the Matter of CA'LEB R.D. (Anonymous), etc. SCO Family of Services, et al., respondents; Mary D.S. (Anonymous), appellant.
Deana Balahsis, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent SCO Family of Services. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Deana Balahsis, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent SCO Family of Services.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, J.), dated September 4, 2012, which, after inquests following her default in appearing at fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon the denial of her requests for adjournments, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child jointly to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the SCO Family of Services for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the mother's requests for adjournments (see CPLR 5511 ; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 418 N.Y.S.2d 99 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Where, as here, an order is made upon the appellant's default, “review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below” (Matter of Constance P. v. Avraam G., 27 A.D.3d 754, 755, 813 N.Y.S.2d 463 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n. 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 ; Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 A.D.3d 907, 968 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; Brown v. Data Communications, 236 A.D.2d 499, 653 N.Y.S.2d 693 ). Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the mother's requests for adjournments, which were made by her attorney prior to the fact-finding and dispositional hearings (see Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 A.D.3d 907, 968 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; Matter of Tripp, 101 A.D.3d 1137, 957 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; Matter of Paulino v. Camacho, 36 A.D.3d 821, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496 ).
“The granting of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447 ; see Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 A.D.3d 907, 968 N.Y.S.2d 125 ). “In making such a determination, the court must undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” (Matter of Sicurella v. Embro, 31 A.D.3d 651, 651, 819 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; see Matter of Tripp, 101 A.D.3d 1137, 957 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). Here, in light of, inter alia, the mother's history of missing court dates, the length of the pendency of the proceeding, and the merit of the proceeding, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's requests for adjournments (see Matter of Tripp, 101 A.D.3d at 1138–1139, 957 N.Y.S.2d 389 ; Matter of Willie Ray B. [Deanna W.B.], 77 A.D.3d 657, 908 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Matter of Sanaia L. [Corey W.], 75 A.D.3d 554, 903 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Matter of Dakota B. [Brigitta B.], 73 A.D.3d 763, 899 N.Y.S.2d 631 ; Matter of Amber Megan D., 54 A.D.3d 338, 862 N.Y.S.2d 568 ).