In re Konard M., 257 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Konard M., 257 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Jemar H. v. Nevada I. (nyappdiv, 2020-04-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jemar H. v. Nevada I.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Accordingly, if the father's due process argument were preserved, we would find that there was no due process violation, given that he waived his right to be present by voluntarily disengaging from the proceeding and that his attorney thereafter continued to advocate on his behalf ( see Matter of Bagot v McClain , 148 AD3d 882, 883 [2017]; Matter of Juleeana ZZ. , 37 AD3d 995, 996 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]; Matter of Konard M. , 257 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Eden S. (Joshua S.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The father waived his further contention that the court violated his right to due process by holding the dispositional hearing in his absence inasmuch as the record reflects that the father chose not to appear and consented to the continuation of the hearing in his absence ( see Matter of Konard M. , 257 AD2d 919, 920 [3d Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Choice I.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Respondent’s counsel appeared at the fact-finding hearing and, although he did not offer an excuse for respondent’s absence, he fully participated in the hearing, having made objections, engaged in cross-examination and moved to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Elliott v Major, 1 AD3d 940, 941 [2003]; Matter of Michelle GG., 261 AD2d 681 , 681-682 [1999]; Matter of Konard M., 257 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Choice I.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Respondent’s counsel appeared at the fact-finding hearing and, although he did not offer an excuse for respondent’s absence, he fully participated in the hearing, having made objections, engaged in cross-examination and moved to dismiss the petition (see Matter of Elliott v Major, 1 AD3d 940, 941 [2003]; Matter of Michelle GG., 261 AD2d 681 , 681-682 [1999]; Matter of Konard M., 257 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Leighann W. v. Thomas X.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The orders that ensued were therefore not issued upon default, and the father was free to appeal from them (see Matter of Corey UU. [Donna UU.], 85 AD3d 1255 , 1256 n 1 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Konard M., 257 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]; Matter of Jennifer DD., 227 AD2d 675, 676 [1996]; compare CPLR 5511; Matter of Myasia QQ. [Mahalia QQ.], 133 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2015]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Juleeana ZZ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Instead, he effectively voluntarily elected not to be present (see Matter of Konard M., 257 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Drew
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
In light of the violent nature of defendant’s crimes, which included the brutal beating of the victim in her own home and in the presence of her young son, as well as a standoff that endangered the lives of law enforcement officers, we do not find an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the sentence (see People v Pailin, 306 AD2d 558, 558 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 597 [2003]; People v Ackerley, 297 AD2d 861, 862 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 554 [2002]; People v Coleman, 257 AD2d 919, 919 [1999]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Konard M. and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent Deborah M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 28, 1999.
257 A.D.2d 919
Carpinello.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
—Carpinello, J.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Reilly, Jr., J.), entered April 10, 1996 and October 30, 1996, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s children permanently neglected and which terminated her parental rights.

Respondent is the mother of three minor children who have been in the custody of petitioner Schenectady County Department of Social Services since June 1993. This disposition was deemed to be in the best interests of the children due to respondent’s admitted addiction to alcohol and crack cocaine. Family Court issued an order, dated April 10, 1996, finding that respondent had permanently neglected her children. The[*920] dispositional hearing was then scheduled for August 2, 1996. Respondent failed to attend the hearing. After her attorney’s motion for an adjournment was denied by Family Court, he informed the court that he was ready to proceed in her absence. The hearing went forth, with respondent’s children represented by their Law Guardian and respondent ably represented by counsel. The latter presented an active defense on respondent’s behalf, introducing evidence, calling witnesses and cross-examining the witnesses called by petitioner. Following the hearing, Family Court rendered an order, terminating respondent’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption. Respondent appeals.

Because respondent’s counsel was present at the hearing and appeared on her behalf,* as was the Law Guardian assigned to represent respondent’s children, there was no default and Family Court was free to try the matter and proceed to a dispositional order in respondent’s absence (see, Matter of Jennifer DD., 227 AD2d 675, 676; Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 AD2d 313, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 967). Having voluntarily absented herself from the proceedings, respondent cannot now be heard to complain that the disposition rendered in her absence constituted a violation of her due process rights.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

It should be noted that no excuse was offered then or since for respondent’s absence.