Matter of Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Martin v. Martin

121 A.D.3d 693, 993 N.Y.S.2d 179

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket2013-07847

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 693 (Matter of Martin v. Martin) 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 Martin v. Martin, 121 A.D.3d 693, 993 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered June 24, 2013, which, upon his failure to appear at a hearing, and upon the denial of his attorney’s application for an adjournment, following an inquest, granted the maternal grandfather’s petition for custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

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

Since the order appealed from was made upon the appellant’s *694 failure to appear, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below, namely, the denial of the adjournment request of the appellant’s attorney (see Matter of Sacks v Abraham, 114 AD3d 799, 800 [2014]; Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d 471 [2013]; Matter of Naomi KK. v Natasha LL., 80 AD3d 834 [2011]). Under the facts of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application made by the appellant’s attorney for an adjournment (see Matter of Sacks v Abraham, 114 AD3d 799 [2014]; Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d at 471).

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered June 24, 2013, which, upon his failure to appear at a hearing, and upon the denial of his attorney’s application for an adjournment, following an inquest, granted the maternal grandfather’s petition for custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

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

Since the order appealed from was made upon the appellant’s *694 failure to appear, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below, namely, the denial of the adjournment request of the appellant’s attorney (see Matter of Sacks v Abraham, 114 AD3d 799, 800 [2014]; Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d 471 [2013]; Matter of Naomi KK. v Natasha LL., 80 AD3d 834 [2011]). Under the facts of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application made by the appellant’s attorney for an adjournment (see Matter of Sacks v Abraham, 114 AD3d 799 [2014]; Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d at 471).

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 693, 993 N.Y.S.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack