Opinion
887 CAF 20-00635
11-12-2021
In the MATTER OF TYRONE O. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Lillian G., Respondent-Appellant, and Maple O., Respondent.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (THOMAS M. LEITH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSHUA E. LAROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. CHARLES E. LUPIA, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (THOMAS M. LEITH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JOSHUA E. LAROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
CHARLES E. LUPIA, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed except insofar as respondent Lillian G. challenges the denial of her attorney's request for an adjournment, and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order, entered upon her default that, inter alia, adjudicated the subject child to be permanently neglected, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred custody of the child to petitioner. The order was entered following fact-finding and dispositional hearings at which the mother failed to appear and in which her attorney, although present, elected not to participate (see Matter of Ramere D. [Biesha D.] , 177 A.D.3d 1386, 1386, 110 N.Y.S.3d 618 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 904, 2020 WL 2203889 [2020] ; Matter of Makia S. [Catherine S.] , 134 A.D.3d 1445, 1445-1446, 21 N.Y.S.3d 653 [4th Dept. 2015] ). Where, as here, the order appealed from is made upon a respondent's default, "review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below" ( Ramere D. , 177 A.D.3d at 1386, 110 N.Y.S.3d 618 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, review is limited to the denial of the request of the mother's attorney for an adjournment (see Matter of Hayden A. [Karen A.] , 188 A.D.3d 1759, 1759, 132 N.Y.S.3d 914 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Ramere D. , 177 A.D.3d at 1386-1387, 110 N.Y.S.3d 618 ). Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying that request inasmuch as the mother's attorney offered nothing beyond a "vague and unsubstantiated claim that the [mother] could not appear" ( Matter of Sophia M.G.-K. [Tracy G.-K.] , 84 A.D.3d 1746, 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 [4th Dept. 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and the mother had a history of failing to appear (see Matter of Wilson v. McCray , 125 A.D.3d 1512, 1513, 3 N.Y.S.3d 555 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 908, 2015 WL 2237599 [2015] ).