Opinion
No. 2022-06057 Docket No. B-1593-22
05-24-2023
In the Matter of Kingston. R. (Anonymous). Rising Ground, petitioner-respondent; Victor R. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, NY, for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, NY, for petitioner-respondent. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, NY, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, NY, for petitioner-respondent.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BARRY E. WARHIT, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated July 20, 2022. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father abandoned and permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
In February 2022, the petitioner commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to terminate the father's parental rights to the subject child. During the fact-finding hearing, the father voluntarily absented himself, and his assigned counsel chose to remain mute. After the fact-finding hearing was completed and after a dispositional hearing, the Family Court found that the father abandoned and permanently neglected the child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The father appeals.
The father's contentions are not properly before this Court, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order issued on the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Aurora B. [Eric H.], 212 A.D.3d 806, 807-808; Matter of Smith v Bullock, 202 A.D.3d 697, 698; Matter of Jaiyeola-Akintunde J., 8 A.D.3d 281, 281).
BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.