Matter of Rachel QQ. v. Jaime QQ.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed an order granting the mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children and imposing conditions before the father could seek contact. The court upheld the denial of the father's requests to appear virtually and set aside his default, concluding that the custody determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record, and dismissed the appeal from the expired order of protection as moot.

Holdings

1. A defaulting party may obtain appellate review of matters actually contested during an inquest; CPLR 5511 does not require dismissal of an appeal to the extent the challenged matters were contested below.
2. Family Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the father's request to appear virtually at the scheduled fact-finding hearing and finding him in default after he failed to appear.
3. Family Court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the father's virtual participation after he called the attorney for the children a derogatory name while she was presenting her position.
4. The award of sole legal and physical custody to the mother and the requirement that the father complete specified evaluations and classes before seeking contact were supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
5. The premature notice of appeal from the custody order was treated as valid under CPLR 5520(c).
6. The appeal from the order of protection was dismissed as moot because the order had expired and the father did not raise a specific argument concerning its merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the father's appeal from a custody order entered upon his default was barred by CPLR 5511 when counsel actively contested the issues at the inquest.
2. Whether Family Court abused its discretion by denying the father's request to appear virtually at the scheduled fact-finding hearing and finding him in default when he failed to appear.
3. Whether Family Court abused its discretion by terminating the father's virtual participation in the inquest after his misconduct toward the attorney for the children.
4. Whether the custody determination and conditions imposed before the father could seek contact with the children had a sound and substantial basis in the record.
5. Whether the appeal from the order of protection was moot because the order had expired.

Disposition

affirmed