Opinion
CAF 01-02417
May 2, 2003.
Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Hood, J.), entered October 22, 2001, which, inter alia, adjudged that the children are neglected.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SHIRLEY K. DUFFY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ANTHONY P. RIVIZZIGNO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MICHAEL J. GAUZZA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
We reject the contention of respondent that she was denied her right to appellate review because the transcript from one day of the fact-finding hearing is missing. At the hearing to settle a statement in lieu of the missing transcript, Family Court produced and read into the record its detailed notes summarizing the testimony of the two witnesses who testified that day and the parties' stipulation with respect to the anticipated testimony of a third witness. Respondent raised no objections and offered no additions to the court's summary. Respondent "does not assert that the missing transcript contains material pertaining to an appealable issue, and upon review of the Judge's extensive trial notes we have found no indication that any error occurred on that date" ( Matter of Latrice R., 93 A.D.2d 838, 838, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 604; see generally People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283, 286-287). Further, respondent's "speculation that objections or motions might have been made which no one is able to recall is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity in the [order] and the proceedings on which it is based" ( People v. Andino, 183 A.D.2d 834, 834-835, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 901).
Turning to the merits, we conclude that the court's finding of neglect with respect to each child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Tabatha WW., 260 A.D.2d 669, 670, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 815). Respondent failed to establish that counsel provided less than meaningful representation ( see Matter of Steven K., 255 A.D.2d 943, 944, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 820; Matter of Matthew C., 227 A.D.2d 679, 682-683). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's request for an adjournment to complete a psychological evaluation that respondent had previously terminated ( see Matter of Melissa M.P., 255 A.D.2d 990, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 801; Matter of Jennifer HH., 193 A.D.2d 850, 852).