Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an appeal in a child custody proceeding after the father failed to appear at a hearing and the Family Court denied his attorney’s request for an adjournment. The court dismissed the appeal except to the extent it challenged the denial of the adjournment and affirmed that ruling, finding no improvident exercise of discretion.
Holdings
- When an order is made upon an appellant's failure to appear, appellate review is limited to matters that were the subject of contest below, including the denial of an adjournment request.
- The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment.
Questions Presented
- Whether the father's appeal from the custody order was reviewable beyond the denial of his attorney's adjournment request after the father failed to appear at the hearing.
- Whether the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (3)
- Matter of Sacks v. Abraham, 114 A.D.3d 799, 800(followed)
- Matter of Kalantarov v. Kalantarov, 109 A.D.3d 471(followed)
- Matter of Naomi KK. v. Natasha LL., 80 A.D.3d 834(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…