Matter of Breaker v. ACS- Kings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Breaker v. ACS- Kings

129 A.D.3d 715, 8 N.Y.S.3d 918

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 3, 2015

Docket2014-03485

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 715 (Matter of Breaker v. ACS- Kings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Breaker v. ACS- Kings, 129 A.D.3d 715, 8 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*716 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated February 11, 2014. The order dismissed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is the maternal aunt of the subject child. She filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking custody of the child.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to serve a copy of the petition on the child’s putative father, or present admissible evidence showing the efforts made to effect service on the putative father (see CPLR 308 [5]; Corbo v Stephens, 272 AD2d 502, 502 [2000]; Cooper-Fry v Kolket, 245 AD2d 846, 847 [1997]).

Contrary to the appellant’s further contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment. “The grant or denial of a motion for ‘an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006], quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; see Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d 555, 555 [2007]; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). “In making such a determination, the court must undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” (Matter of Sicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651, 651 [2006]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the need for an adjournment resulted from a lack of due diligence on the appellant’s part, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s request (see generally Matter of Ca’leb R.D. [Mary D.S.], 121 AD3d 890, 891 [2014]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d at 555; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d at 822).

Skelos, J.R, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

*716 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated February 11, 2014. The order dismissed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is the maternal aunt of the subject child. She filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking custody of the child.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to serve a copy of the petition on the child’s putative father, or present admissible evidence showing the efforts made to effect service on the putative father (see CPLR 308 [5]; Corbo v Stephens, 272 AD2d 502, 502 [2000]; Cooper-Fry v Kolket, 245 AD2d 846, 847 [1997]).

Contrary to the appellant’s further contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment. “The grant or denial of a motion for ‘an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006], quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; see Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d 555, 555 [2007]; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). “In making such a determination, the court must undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors” (Matter of Sicurella v Embro, 31 AD3d 651, 651 [2006]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the need for an adjournment resulted from a lack of due diligence on the appellant’s part, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s request (see generally Matter of Ca’leb R.D. [Mary D.S.], 121 AD3d 890, 891 [2014]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d at 555; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d at 822).

Skelos, J.R, Leventhal, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 715, 8 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-breaker-v-acs-kings-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack