Opinion
2022–01899 Docket No. B–17643–19
11-01-2023
In the MATTER OF ANI R.A.R. (Anonymous). Abbott House, petitioner-respondent; v. Jesse R.R. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, NY, for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, NY, for petitioner-respondent. Helene Chowes, New York, NY, attorney for the child.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, NY, for petitioner-respondent.
Helene Chowes, New York, NY, attorney for the child.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JANICE A. TAYLOR, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated March 2, 2022. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon the father's failure to appear at the hearings, found that the father permanently neglected the subject child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the father's attorney's applications for adjournments, and the father's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (see CPLR 5511 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of fact-finding and disposition was entered upon the father's default, the father may challenge the denial of his attorney's applications for adjournments since they were the subject of contest below (see Matter of Daija K.P. [Danielle P.], 129 A.D.3d 1087, 12 N.Y.S.3d 239 ; Matter of Xiao–Lan Ma v. Washington, 127 A.D.3d 982, 4 N.Y.S.3d 916 ; Matter of Ca'leb R.D. [Mary D.S.], 121 A.D.3d 890, 994 N.Y.S.2d 395 ).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his attorney's applications for adjournments. "The granting of an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the hearing court upon a balanced consideration of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sacks v. Abraham, 114 A.D.3d 799, 800, 980 N.Y.S.2d 525 ; see Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 A.D.3d 907, 908, 968 N.Y.S.2d 125 ). Here, in light of, inter alia, the failure of the father's attorney to offer any explanation for the father's absences, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the applications for adjournments (see Matter of Daniel K.L. [Shaquanna L.], 138 A.D.3d 743, 745, 29 N.Y.S.3d 436 ; Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 A.D.3d at 908, 968 N.Y.S.2d 125 ).
The father's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. "A respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv] ), which encompasses the right to the effective assistance of counsel" ( Matter of Deanna E.R. [Latisha M.], 169 A.D.3d 691, 692, 93 N.Y.S.3d 375 ; see Matter of Grace G. [Gloria G.], 194 A.D.3d 712, 714, 147 N.Y.S.3d 125 ). "[T]he statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded to defendants in criminal proceedings" ( Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. King, 149 A.D.3d 942, 943, 53 N.Y.S.3d 130 ). Here, the father failed to show that his attorney lacked legitimate, strategic reasons for standing mute at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, at which the father failed to appear (see Matter of Grace G. [Gloria G.], 194 A.D.3d 712, 714–715, 147 N.Y.S.3d 125 ). In addition, counsel's "fail[ure] to make a motion or argument that ha[d] little or no chance of success" did not deprive the father of the effective assistance of counsel ( Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92 A.D.3d 945, 945, 938 N.Y.S.2d 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of fact-finding and disposition insofar as reviewed.
DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, TAYLOR and VENTURA, JJ., concur.