In re Danielle M., 26 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Danielle M., 26 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …appeared at and participated in the hearing at p. 748 ✓ Topic ↗
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Bianca F. (Terrald F.) (nyappdiv, 2021-02-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bianca F. (Terrald F.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Matter of Savanna G. [Danyelle M.] , 118 AD3d 1482 , 1482 [4th Dept 2014]; Matter of Danielle M. , 26 AD3d 748, 748 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dench-Layton v. Dench-Layton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The father had appeared on the first three days of the hearing, had already provided substantial testimony in support of his defense and had been cross-examined by the mother’s counsel (see Matter of Savanna G. [Danyelle M.], 118 AD3d 1482 , 1482 [2014]; Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 748 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Otrosinka v. Hageman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is well established that prisoners do not have an absolute constitutional right to be present in their own civil actions” (Cook v Boyd, 881 F Supp 171, 175 [ED Pa 1995], affd 85 F3d 611 [3d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 891 [1996], reh denied 519 US 1024 [1996]; see Matter of Giovannie M.-V, 35 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2006]; Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 748-749 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see also Civil Rights Law § 79 [2]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Otrosinka v. Hageman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“It is well established that prisoners do not have an absolute constitutional right to be present in their own civil actions” (Cook v Boyd, 881 F Supp 171, 175 [ED Pa 1995], affd 85 F3d 611 [3d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 891 [1996], reh denied 519 US 1024 [1996]; see Matter of Giovannie M.-V, 35 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2006]; Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 748-749 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see also Civil Rights Law § 79 [2]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Savanna G.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney “appeared at and participated in the hearing” until the mother left the courtroom, “there was no default” (Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 748 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see Thompson, 91 AD3d at 1328 ; Matter of Isaiah H., 61 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Savanna G.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney “appeared at and participated in the hearing” until the mother left the courtroom, “there was no default” (Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 748 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see Thompson, 91 AD3d at 1328 ; Matter of Isaiah H., 61 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Eileen R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Some examples of steps that courts have taken to protect the due process rights of unavoidably absent parents include permitting telephonic testimony or attendance, testimony by other means such as depositions, periodic adjournments to permit the incarcerated parent to review transcripts of testimony, and appointing counsel who can fully participate in the proceeding on behalf of the parent (see generally Matter of Danielle M., 26 AD3d 748, 749 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; Matter of Ramon C., 261 AD2d 205 [1999]; Matter of James Carton K., 245 AD2d at 376-377 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Danielle M., an Infant. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Respondent Thomas M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 3, 2006.
26 A.D.3d 748
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), entered August 30, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged the subject child to be an abandoned child and committed the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting the petition seeking termination of his parental rights on the ground of abandonment. At the time of the hearing on the petition, respondent was incarcerated in Pennsylvania. Respondent participated in the first two court appearances by telephone, but thereafter refused to participate by telephone. We note that the order on appeal is incorrectly titled a “default” order of disposition. Respondent’s counsel appeared at and participated in the hearing, and thus there was no default (see Matter of Sales v Gisendaner, 272 AD2d 997 [2000]; Matter of Jennifer DD., 227 AD2d 675, 676 [1996]).

Contrary to the contention of respondent, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to communicate with either the child or petitioner during the relevant period of time (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]; Matter of Brianna K.J.W., 15 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2005]). Also contrary to the contention of respondent, he was not denied his right to due process when Family Court proceeded with the hearing in his absence (see Matter of Robert David L., 7 AD3d 529, 530 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004]; Matter of James Carton K., 245 AD2d 374,[*749] 375-377 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 809 [1998]; see also Matter of William EE., 245 AD2d 813, 814 [1997]; Jennifer DD., 227 AD2d at 675-676). The court arranged for respondent to participate in the hearing by telephone, and respondent’s counsel represented respondent’s interests at the hearing (see Robert David L., 7 AD3d at 530; Matter of Raymond Dean L., 109 AD2d 87, 90-91 [1985]). Finally, we reject the contention of respondent that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Whitley v Leonard, 5 AD3d 825, 827 [2004]; Matter of Bates v Bates, 290 AD2d 732, 734 [2002]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Green and Hayes, JJ.