At page 997 “a party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear”4 citing cases
- Matter of Hilton v. Hilton, 2019 NY Slip Op 4572 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2019).publishedWhere, as here, "a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded" ( Matter of Pollard v Pollard , 63 AD3…
- Manning, Kathleen S. v. Sobotka, Stanley P., 107 A.D.3d 1638 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013).published“A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear” (Matter of Sales v Gisendaner, 272 AD2d 997, 997 [2000]; see Erie County Dept. of Social Servs., 91 AD3d at 1328 ).
- Erie Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Wiser v. Thompson, 91 A.D.3d 1327 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012).published“A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear” (Matter of Sales v Gisendaner, 272 AD2d 997, 997 [2000]).
- In re Isaiah H., 61 A.D.3d 1372 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009).published“A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear” (Matter of Sales v Gisendaner, 272 AD2d 997, 997 [2000]).
v.
Jeannine Gisendaner
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this child custody dispute between a mother and grandmother, Family Court erred in granting the grandmother’s petition without a hearing on the ground that the mother had defaulted in appearing in response thereto. A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear (see, Matter of Cleveland W., 256 AD2d 1151, 1151-1152; Matter of Robert F, 200 AD2d 899; Matter of Cecelia A., 199 AD2d 582; cf., Matter of Black v Black, 84 AD2d 922). In any event, the court erred in granting the petition summarily (see, Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770; Matter of Van Etten v Van Etten, 207 AD2d 992). A parent’s right to be heard on a matter of child custody is fundamental and “not to be disregarded absent a convincing showing of waiver” (Matter of Kendra M., 175 AD2d 657, 658; see, Matter of Cleveland W., supra, at 1151). Moreover, transfer of custody from a parent to a nonparent requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying the court’s intervention, followed by a showing that an award of custody to the nonparent is in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffi'eys, 40 NY2d 543, 545-[*998] 549). Those issues may not be determined summarily (see, Matter of Stefanik v Roberts, 266 AD2d 758, citing D’Entremont v DEntremont, 254 AD2d 576, 576-577). Consequently, we reverse the order and remit the matter to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition before a different Judge. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Custody.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.