Opinion
03-06-2024
In the Matter of Ron RODNEY, respondent, v. Stephanie PIOMBINO, appellant.
David M. Rosoff, White Plains, NY, for appellant. Riebling & Payton, PLLC, Mount Kisco, NY (Stephen J. Riebling, Jr., of counsel), for respondent. George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, attorney for the child.
David M. Rosoff, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
Riebling & Payton, PLLC, Mount Kisco, NY (Stephen J. Riebling, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, BARRY E. WARHIT, CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ. DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene Gordon-Oliver, J.), dated September 21, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon the mother’s failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance, upon the denial of her application for leave to appear virtually, and after an inquest, directed the parties to take the subject child’s wishes into consideration for all scheduled parental access.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the mother’s application for leave to appear virtually (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 is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Where, as here, the order appealed from was made upon the mother’s default in appearing at a scheduled court conference, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below (see Matter of Paulino v. Camacho, 36 A.D.3d 821, 822, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496). Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the mother’s application for leave to appear virtually in court (see Matter of Shcherbyna v. Taylor, 221 A.D.3d 719, 720, 200 N.Y.S.3d 57; Matter of Kalantarov v. Kalantarova, 109 A.D.3d 471, 472, 969 N.Y.S.2d 920; Matter of Krische v. Sloan, 100 A.D.3d 758, 953 N.Y.S.2d 876).
Under the facts of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s application for leave to appear virtually in court (see Matter of John EE. v. Jalyssa GG., 222 A.D.3d 1219, 1220, 202 N.Y.S.3d 499; Matter of Shcherbyna v. Taylor, 221 A.D.3d at 720, 200 N.Y.S.3d 57; Matter of Kalantarov v. Kalantarova, 109 A.D.3d at 472, 969 N.Y.S.2d 920; Matter of Krische v. Sloan, 100 A.D.3d 758, 953 N.Y.S.2d 876).
DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.