Opinion
2018–01089 Docket No. F–6822–07/17S
02-06-2019
In the Matter of Gloria RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. Moises C. MERA, Appellant.
Helene M. Greenberg, Elmsford, NY, for appellant.
Helene M. Greenberg, Elmsford, NY, for appellant.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales Horowitz, J.), dated January 8, 2018. The order, upon the father's failure to appear at a confirmation hearing, in effect, confirmed an order of the same court (Esther R. Furman, S.M.) dated October 20, 2017, made after a hearing, finding that the father willfully violated an order of support and recommending that he be incarcerated for a period of six months unless he paid a purge amount. By decision and order on motion dated April 25, 2018, this Court dismissed the appeal except insofar as it brings up for review the father's request to adjourn the confirmation hearing.
ORDERED that the order dated January 8, 2018, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
" ‘The granting of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court’ " ( Matter of Leonard v. Leonard, 150 A.D.3d 1242, 1244, 56 N.Y.S.3d 341, quoting Matter of Lorys v. Powell, 116 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 983 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; see Branch v. Cole–Lacy, 96 A.D.3d 741, 945 N.Y.S.2d 743 ). " ‘In making such a determination, the court must undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors’ " ( Matter of Leonard v. Leonard, 150 A.D.3d at 1244, 56 N.Y.S.3d 341, quoting Matter of Lorys v. Powell, 116 A.D.3d at 1048, 983 N.Y.S.2d 892 ). Here, in light of, inter alia, the father's extensive history of nonpayment of his child support obligation and his failure to submit any evidence to substantiate his claim that a family member had died, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment (see Matter of Dench–Layton v. Dench–Layton, 151 A.D.3d 1199, 56 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of Xiao–Lan Ma v. Washington, 127 A.D.3d 982, 4 N.Y.S.3d 914, 916; cf. Matter of Branch v. Cole–Lacy, 96 A.D.3d 741, 945 N.Y.S.2d 743 ). Moreover, contrary to the father's contention, he was not denied due process (see Matter of Dench–Layton v. Dench–Layton, 151 A.D.3d 1199, 56 N.Y.S.3d 598 ).
The father's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.