In re William Jamal W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re William Jamal W.

89 A.D.3d 502, 932 N.Y.2d 338

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The court acquired jurisdiction over respondent when respondent appeared in court on January 28, 2010, and neither she nor her counsel objected to the manner of the service of the summons, despite the omission of the return date therefrom (see Family Ct Act § 167).

No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). However, the denial of respondent’s counsel’s request to adjourn the inquest and dispositional hearing is appealable because that request was “the subject of contest below” (see James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3 [1967]). We find that the court- properly declined to grant the adjournment, having warned respondent on the preceding court date that it would proceed to inquest if she failed to appear (see Matter of Cain Keel L. [Derzerina L.], 78 AD3d 541 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 818 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court acquired jurisdiction over respondent when respondent appeared in court on January 28, 2010, and neither she nor her counsel objected to the manner of the service of the summons, despite the omission of the return date therefrom (see Family Ct Act § 167).

No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). However, the denial of respondent’s counsel’s request to adjourn the inquest and dispositional hearing is appealable because that request was “the subject of contest below” (see James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3 [1967]). We find that the court- properly declined to grant the adjournment, having warned respondent on the preceding court date that it would proceed to inquest if she failed to appear (see Matter of Cain Keel L. [Derzerina L.], 78 AD3d 541 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 818 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

In re William Jamal W., 89 A.D.3d 502, 932 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 502 (In re William Jamal W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related