continuation hearing in New York

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2023Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in taking a negative inference against her for her failure to appear and offer any proof at the continuation of the hearing, nor does this constitute bias or prejudice against the mother ( see Matter of Amanda I. v Michael I. , 185 AD3d 1252, 1255 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Cameron ZZ. v Ashton B. , 183 AD3d 1076, 1080-1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; Matter of Joshua UU. v Martha VV. , 118 AD3d 1051, 1054 [3d Dept 2014]).

2013Moreover, at the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court did not err in denying the request of the mother’s attorney for an adjournment when the mother failed to appear at the continuation of that hearing (see Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]; cf. Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92 AD3d 945, 945 [2012]).

2013Moreover, at the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court did not err in denying the request of the mother’s attorney for an adjournment when the mother failed to appear at the continuation of that hearing (see Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]; cf. Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92 AD3d 945, 945 [2012]).

2013Moreover, at the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court did not err in denying the request of the mother’s attorney for an adjournment when the mother failed to appear at the continuation of that hearing (see Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]; cf. Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92 AD3d 945, 945 [2012]).

2013Moreover, at the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court did not err in denying the request of the mother’s attorney for an adjournment when the mother failed to appear at the continuation of that hearing (see Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]; cf. Matter of Assatta N.P. [Nelson L.], 92 AD3d 945, 945 [2012]).

2021Accordingly, a CPL article 440 motion is the proper vehicle by which to raise such contention ( see People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701 , 703 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).

2021Accordingly, a CPL article 440 motion is the proper vehicle by which to raise such contention ( see People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 703 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]).

2012With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we reject the mother’s contention that the father failed to establish a change in -2- 316 CAF 10-00836 circumstances since entry of the consent order to warrant reexamination of the visitation arrangement (see Matter of Black v Watson, 81 AD3d 1316, 1317 , lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 747 ).

2012With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we reject the mother’s contention that the father failed to establish a change in circumstances since entry of the consent order to warrant reexamination of the visitation arrangement (see Matter of Black v Watson, 81 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2011], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 747 [2011]).

2019The 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]).

2017Notably, the correction officer did not elaborate on the reason for petitioner’s refusal, and the Hearing Officer did not inquire (see Matter of Brooks v James, 105 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2013]).

2011Family Court appropriately denied his request for further time to find new counsel, as the first proceeding had been pending for more than seven months and respondent had almost two weeks before the continuation of the hearing (see Matter of Adams v Bracci, 61 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]).

2010This record does not contain an adequate basis to conclude that petitioner refused to attend the hearing or was informed of the consequences of his failure to appear (see 7 NYCRR 254.6 [a] [2]; Matter of Tafari v Selsky, 40 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2007]).

2004Matter of Allaway v Regan, supra at 964; Matter of Pentinen v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 60 AD2d 366, 369 [1978], lv denied 44 NY2d 647 [1978]); moreover, nothing prevented petitioner from requesting a continuation of the hearing for the purpose of either obtaining counsel or offering the evidence he now claims should have been considered.

2004As he failed to do so and, indeed, raised no evidentiary objections at all during the hearing, we find that petitioner has waived his right to assert these claims (see Matter of Wallace v Regan, 105 AD2d 586, 587 [1984]).

2004The notice of claim provisions of the General Municipal Law were enacted to enable municipalities “to pass upon the merits of a claim before the initiation of litigation and thereby forestall unnecessary lawsuits” (Alford v City of New York, 115 AD2d 420, 421 [1985], affd in part, dismissed in part, 67 NY2d 1019 [1986], citing Fourth Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Municipal Tort Liability, 42 NY Legis Docs 24 [1959]).

1994"Section 906 (subd [bj par [3]) of the Business Corporation Law, which permits the continuation of a shareholder’s action on behalf of a merged corporation, should fairly be construed to mean the continuation of the claim on behalf of the corporation but not to preserve standing of a now nonstockholder to enforce that claim on behalf of the corporation against that corporation’s will” ( 91 AD2d, at 446-447 [emphasis added]).