Opinion
525174
10-25-2018
In the Matter of Janeen E. WHELAN, Respondent, v. Jean–Philippe BARON, Appellant.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant. Christopher Hammond, Cooperstown, attorney for the child. Dennis B. Laughlin, Cherry Valley, for respondent.
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant.
Christopher Hammond, Cooperstown, attorney for the child.
Dennis B. Laughlin, Cherry Valley, for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aarons, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), entered June 5, 2017, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of the parties' child.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the parents of a son (born in 2013). In January 2017, petitioner filed a custody petition and a family offense petition alleging various family offenses committed by the father. In May 2017, a fact-finding hearing was held. Although the father's counsel was present, the father did not appear at the fact-finding hearing. Following its conclusion, Family Court, in a June 2017 order, granted the family offense petition and issued a two-year order of protection in favor of the mother. Family Court also granted the custody petition and, among other things, awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child and suspended the father's visitation with the child subject to any future visitation petitions being filed. The father appeals.
Because the father did not appear at the fact-finding hearing, he was in default and, therefore, his appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Madison P. [Kaitlin R.], 151 A.D.3d 1300, 1302, 58 N.Y.S.3d 167 [2017] ; Matter of Carolyn Z. , 53 A.D.3d 875, 877, 862 N.Y.S.2d 620 [2008], lv dismissed 11 N.Y.3d 807, 868 N.Y.S.2d 585, 897 N.E.2d 1067 [2008] ). We note that a party's failure to appear does not automatically result in a default, particularly "where counsel appears, explains [the] client's absence, objects to a finding of default, and actively participates by cross-examining witnesses, offering proof or making motions or arguments" ( Matter of Myasia QQ. [Mahalia QQ.], 133 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 21 N.Y.S.3d 361 [2015] ). Here, even though the father's counsel appeared at the fact-finding hearing, he had no explanation for the father's absence and did not cross-examine the mother, offer any evidence on the father's behalf or make any opening or closing statements. Under these circumstances, we find that the father was in default (see Matter of Richardson v. Fitch–Richardson , 135 A.D.3d 1091, 1092, 22 N.Y.S.3d 917 [2016] ; Matter of Naomi KK. v. Natasha LL. , 80 A.D.3d 834, 835, 914 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 711, 2011 WL 1643283 [2011] ; compare Matter of Cecelia A. , 199 A.D.2d 582, 583, 604 N.Y.S.2d 327 [1993] ). The proper procedure was for the father to move to vacate the June 2017 order and, if necessary, appeal from the order denying that motion (see Matter of Jesse DD. v. Arianna EE. , 150 A.D.3d 1426, 1427, 54 N.Y.S.3d 733 [2017] ; Matter of Scott KK. v. Patricia LL. , 110 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 974 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2013], lv dismissed and denied 22 N.Y.3d 1054, 981 N.Y.S.2d 360, 4 N.E.3d 372 [2014] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Rumsey, JJ., concur.