Opinion
2015-05-01
In the Matter of Jonathan D. VANSKIVER, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mallory J. CLANCY, Respondent–Appellant.
Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for Respondent–Appellant. Samantha Peters Smith, Attorney for the Child, Canisteo.
Cara A. Waldman, Fairport, for Respondent–Appellant. Samantha Peters Smith, Attorney for the Child, Canisteo.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from an order modifying a prior custody order by, inter alia, awardingsole legal custody and primary physical placement of the parties' child to petitioner father, respondent mother contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. “[W]e note at the outset that, ‘because the potential consequences are so drastic, the Family Court Act affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminal proceedings' ” ( Matter of Brown v. Gandy, 125 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 3 N.Y.S.3d 486). We nevertheless reject the mother's contention inasmuch as she did not “ ‘demonstrate the absence of strategy or other legitimate explanations' for counsel's alleged shortcomings” (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; see Matter of Reinhardt v. Hardison, 122 A.D.3d 1448, 1449, 997 N.Y.S.2d 564).
Contrary to the mother's further contention, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her attorney's request for an adjournment and in holding the hearing in her absence ( see Matter of O'Leary v. Frangomihalos, 89 A.D.3d 948, 949, 933 N.Y.S.2d 88; see generally Matter of Steven B., 6 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646). The mother was aware of the hearing date, and her attorney's “vague claim that [she] was unable to attend the hearing due to [winter weather conditions] was unsupported by any detailed explanation or evidence from the [mother]” ( Matter of Braswell v. Braswell, 80 A.D.3d 827, 829, 914 N.Y.S.2d 749; see O'Leary, 89 A.D.3d at 949, 933 N.Y.S.2d 88).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.