continued hearing in New York

2024Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate his default ( see Matter of Serenity Victoria M. [Allison B.] , 150 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2017]) because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the continued hearing on the family offense petition ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.] , 111 AD3d 418 , 419 [1st Dept 2013]).

2024Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate his default ( see Matter of Serenity Victoria M. [Allison B.] , 150 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2017]) because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the continued hearing on the family offense petition ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.] , 111 AD3d 418 , 419 [1st Dept 2013]).

2024Respondent's contention that he was in the court's virtual lobby waiting to be let into the virtual hearing for about 50 minutes conflicted with his counsel's statement to Family Court that he was requesting an adjournment on respondent's behalf because he had just received a text from respondent stating that he "was on his way to work." The other evidence submitted by respondent, a screen shot purportedly showing that he was in the court's virtual lobby at 4:51 p.m., is undated and did not establish whether he was present 50 minutes earlier, when the hearing was scheduled to begin, or how lon

2024Respondent's contention that he was in the court's virtual lobby waiting to be let into the virtual hearing for about 50 minutes conflicted with his counsel's statement to Family Court that he was requesting an adjournment on respondent's behalf because he had just received a text from respondent stating that he "was on his way to work." The other evidence submitted by respondent, a screen shot purportedly showing that he was in the court's virtual lobby at 4:51 p.m., is undated and did not establish whether he was present 50 minutes earlier, when the hearing was scheduled to begin, or how lon

2024Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate his default ( see Matter of Serenity Victoria M. [Allison B.] , 150 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2017]) because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the continued hearing on the family offense petition ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.] , 111 AD3d 418 , 419 [1st Dept 2013]).

2024Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate his default ( see Matter of Serenity Victoria M. [Allison B.] , 150 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2017]) because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the continued hearing on the family offense petition ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.] , 111 AD3d 418 , 419 [1st Dept 2013]).

2019Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.—Tanisha R.B.]. , 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.] , 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill , 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane , 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Lando v Lando , 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz , 95 AD3d at 1131 ).

2018Here, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.-Tanisha R.B.]., 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.], 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane, 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Lando v Lando, 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz, 95 AD3d 1130, 1131 ).

2019Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.—Tanisha R.B.]. , 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.] , 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill , 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane , 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Lando v Lando , 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz , 95 AD3d at 1131 ).

2018Here, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.-Tanisha R.B.]., 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.], 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane, 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Lando v Lando, 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz, 95 AD3d 1130, 1131 ).

2019Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.—Tanisha R.B.]. , 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.] , 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill , 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane , 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Lando v Lando , 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz , 95 AD3d at 1131 ).

2018Here, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.-Tanisha R.B.]., 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.], 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane, 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Lando v Lando, 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz, 95 AD3d 1130, 1131 ).

2019Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.—Tanisha R.B.]. , 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.] , 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill , 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane , 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Lando v Lando , 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz , 95 AD3d at 1131 ).

2018Here, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely attend the continued hearing ( see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.-Tanisha R.B.]., 156 AD3d 695, 696 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.], 147 AD3d 699, 699 ; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559 ; Matter of Territo v Keane, 55 AD3d 744 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Lando v Lando, 160 AD3d 859 , 860; Matter of Mongitore v Linz, 95 AD3d 1130, 1131 ).

2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S.,

2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S.,

2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S.,

2013In light of the mother’s presence at the hearing on October 24, 2011, when her attorney cross-examined the petitioner Alice T., the mother’s actual knowledge of the date and time of the continued hearing, which is undisputed, and her failure to contact her attorney to advise him regarding her failure to appear on the final date of the hearing, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment (cf. Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos, 89 AD3d at 949 ; Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 AD3d at 841; Matter of Nicholas S.,

2025Here, Satterthwaite's "decision to reschedule the continued hearing in the [underlying] proceeding, before [Satterthwaite] answered the petition in this proceeding, did not establish that the petitioner prevailed in whole or in substantial part in this proceeding" ( id. [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Criss v New York State Dept. of Health , 192 AD3d 1545, 1548-1549 ).

2024Here, in light of the father's actual knowledge of the date of the continued hearing and his failure to contact his attorney and advise his attorney regarding his failure to appear, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment ( see Matter of N. [Fania D.-Alice T.] , 108 AD3d 551 , 552-553).

2023Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court's decision to reschedule the continued hearing in the violation proceeding, before the respondent answered the petition in this proceeding, did not establish that the petitioner "prevail[ed] in whole or in substantial part" in this proceeding (CPLR 8602[f]; see CPLR 8602[a]; Matter of Clarke v Annucci , 190 AD3d 1245, 1247 ; Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 152 AD3d at 683 ).

2023Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court's decision to reschedule the continued hearing in the violation proceeding, before the respondent answered the petition in this proceeding, did not establish that the petitioner "prevail[ed] in whole or in substantial part" in this proceeding (CPLR 8602[f]; see CPLR 8602[a]; Matter of Clarke v Annucci , 190 AD3d 1245, 1247 ; Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 152 AD3d at 683 ).

2019Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a continued hearing on the mother's petition to modify the January 2015 order ( see Matter of Ruiz v Travis , 84 AD3d at 1243 ).

2018No appeal lies from the order dated December 12, 2016, as it was entered upon the mother's default in appearing at a continued hearing ( see Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.], 154 AD3d 758, 758-759 ; Matter of Iyana W. [Shamark W.], 124 AD3d 418 ; Matter of Jalaya A.C. [Deidra J.], 112 AD3d 623 , 624).

2018Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California ( 386 US 738 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

2018No appeal lies from the order dated December 12, 2016, as it was entered upon the mother's default in appearing at a continued hearing ( see Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.], 154 AD3d 758, 758-759 ; Matter of Iyana W. [Shamark W.], 124 AD3d 418 ; Matter of Jalaya A.C. [Deidra J.], 112 AD3d 623 , 624).

2018No appeal lies from the order dated December 12, 2016, as it was entered upon the mother's default in appearing at a continued hearing ( see Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.], 154 AD3d 758, 758-759 ; Matter of Iyana W. [Shamark W.], 124 AD3d 418 ; Matter of Jalaya A.C. [Deidra J.], 112 AD3d 623 , 624).

2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the bank records admitted into evidence at the continued hearing on damages were admissible as self-authenticating documents (see Thomas v Rogers Auto Collision, Inc., 69 AD3d at 609 ; Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116 [1991]).

2014Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the bank records admitted into evidence at the continued hearing on damages were admissible as self-authenticating documents (see Thomas v Rogers Auto Collision, Inc., 69 AD3d at 609 ; Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116 [1991]).

2012In fact, the mother never appeared in court on the day of the default (cf. Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456 [2002]).

2011Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a continued hearing as to whether a change in circumstances exists which requires a modification of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the child (cf. Matter of David WW. v Laureen QQ., 42 AD3d 685, 686 [2007]; Matter of Ortiz v Ortiz, 6 AD3d 619 [2004]; see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]).