Opinion
1202 CAF 18–01722
12-20-2019
In the Matter of Tonya Annmarie SERNA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Dwight Edward JONES, Jr., Respondent–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded petitioner mother sole legal and physical custody of the subject children, with supervised visitation to the father.
The father contends that Family Court abused its discretion by precluding him from introducing evidence at the hearing as a sanction for his willful failure to respond to the mother's interrogatories. According to the father, the sanction prevented the court from fully exploring the issues affecting the children's best interests. We conclude that the father failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the court's ruling or otherwise raise that contention at the hearing (see Matter of Clark v. Hawkins, 140 A.D.3d 1753, 1754, 33 N.Y.S.3d 646 [4th Dept. 2016] ; see also Matter of Shepherd v. Stocker, 159 A.D.3d 1441, 1442, 73 N.Y.S.3d 693 [4th Dept. 2018] ). In any event, we conclude that the contention is without merit. Under the circumstances of this case, the discovery sanction imposed did not "adversely affect the child[ren]'s right to have issues affecting [their] best interest[s] fully explored," including, as particularly relevant here, the father's history of domestic violence ( Matter of Stukes v. Ryan, 289 A.D.2d 623, 624, 733 N.Y.S.2d 541 [3d Dept. 2001] ; see Matter of Landrigen v. Landrigen, 173 A.D.2d 1011, 1012, 569 N.Y.S.2d 843 [3d Dept. 1991] ).
Finally, we reject the father's remaining contention for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.