Opinion
1042 CAF 18–01344
11-15-2019
In the MATTER OF RAMERE D. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Biesha D., Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH MARZOCCHI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed except insofar as respondent challenges the denial of her attorney's request for an adjournment, and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated the subject child's placement with the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, the petitioner therein. In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to his paternal grandparents, the petitioners therein. Both orders were entered following a dispositional hearing at which the mother failed to appear and in which her attorney, although present, elected not to participate (see Matter of Makia S. [Catherine S.], 134 A.D.3d 1445, 1445–1446, 21 N.Y.S.3d 653 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Shawn A. [Milisa C.B.], 85 A.D.3d 1598, 1598–1599, 924 N.Y.S.2d 902 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 713, 2011 WL 4916617 [2011] ). Where, as here, the orders appealed from were made upon the mother's default, "review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below" ( Matter of Paulino v. Camacho, 36 A.D.3d 821, 822, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496 [2d Dept. 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of DiNunzio v. Zylinski, 175 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 108 N.Y.S.3d 634 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Thus, in both appeals, review is limited to the denial of the request of the mother's attorney for an adjournment (see Paulino, 36 A.D.3d at 822, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496 ). We reject the mother's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in denying that request inasmuch as the mother's attorney offered nothing beyond a "vague and unsubstantiated claim that the [mother] could not appear" ( Matter of Sophia M.G.-K. [Tracy G.-K.], 84 A.D.3d 1746, 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 [4th Dept. 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sanaia L. [Corey W.], 75 A.D.3d 554, 554–555, 903 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2d Dept. 2010] ).
Finally, to the extent that the mother contends in these appeals that the court erred by imposing in its permanency orders concurrent and contradictory permanency goals, that contention is not properly before us inasmuch as the mother did not appeal from those orders (see Matter of Lakeya P. v. Ajja M., 169 A.D.3d 1409, 1410, 92 N.Y.S.3d 787 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 906, 2019 WL 2461559 [2019] ).