Opinion
702 CAF 21-00331
09-30-2022
In the MATTER OF LOGAN P.G. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. William G., Respondent-Appellant.
JILL L. PAPERNO, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMANDA L. OREN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MAUREEN N. POLEN, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
JILL L. PAPERNO, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMANDA L. OREN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MAUREEN N. POLEN, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, 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 Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated his parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The father's sole contention on appeal is that Family Court abused its discretion in denying the request of his attorney for an adjournment so that the father, who was not present, could testify. We reject that contention (see generally Matter of Sophia M.G.-K. [Tracy G.-K.] , 84 A.D.3d 1746, 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 [4th Dept. 2011] ). "[T]he determination whether to grant a request for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( Matter of Sanchez v. Alvarez , 151 A.D.3d 1869, 1869, 58 N.Y.S.3d 786 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Here, in support of the request, the father's attorney offered no explanation as to why the father failed to appear (see Sophia M.G.-K. , 84 A.D.3d at 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 ). Moreover, the court noted that the father had been informed of the date of the hearing and the consequences of his nonappearance, and the court stated that the hearing had been scheduled prior to an earlier hearing date at which the father had been present. The father's counsel did not dispute any of those facts and could not explain the father's absence. Counsel thus "failed to demonstrate that the need for the adjournment ... was not based on a lack of due diligence on the part of the [father] or [his] attorney" ( Sanchez , 151 A.D.3d at 1869, 58 N.Y.S.3d 786 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Latonia W. [Anthony W.] , 144 A.D.3d 1692, 1693, 41 N.Y.S.3d 643 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 914, 2017 WL 582524 [2017] ; Matter of Elias QQ. [Stephanie QQ.] , 72 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 897 N.Y.S.2d 762 [3d Dept. 2010] ).