Matter of Shcherbyna v. Taylor
This text of 200 N.Y.S.3d 57 (Matter of Shcherbyna v. Taylor) 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.
Opinion
| Matter of Shcherbyna v Taylor |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 05611 |
| Decided on November 8, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 8, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
BARRY E. WARHIT
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
2023-02200
2023-02204
(Docket Nos. V-18380-22, V-18381-22)
v
Randolph J. Taylor, Sr., respondent.
Mykhailo Shcherbyna and Kateryna Levchuk, Tallahassee, Florida, appellants pro se.
Randolph J. Taylor, Sr., Dix Hills, NY, respondent pro se.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandparents appeal from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Mary E. Porter, J.), both dated February 1, 2023. The orders, one as to each child, upon the maternal grandparents' failure to appear on the return date and the denial of their application for leave to appear in court "by audio-visual means" or other electronic means, dismissed their petition for visitation without prejudice.
ORDERED that the appeals from the orders are dismissed except insofar as they bring up for review the denial of the maternal grandparents' application for leave to appear in court "by audio-visual means" or other electronic means (see CPLR 5511); and it is further
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Where, as here, the orders appealed from were made upon the default of the maternal grandparents (hereinafter together the grandparents) in appearing, review is limited to matters which were the subject of the contest below (see Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d 821). Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the grandparents' application for leave to appear in court "by audio-visual means" or other electronic means (see Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d 471; Matter of Krische v Sloan, 100 AD3d 758).
Under the facts of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the grandparents' application for leave to appear in court "by audio-visual means" or other electronic means (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-j; Matter of Kalantarov v Kalantarova, 109 AD3d 471; Matter of Krische v Sloan, 100 AD3d 758).
CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
200 N.Y.S.3d 57, 221 A.D.3d 719, 2023 NY Slip Op 05611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-shcherbyna-v-taylor-nyappdiv-2023.