consolidated hearing in New York

2014Consolidated established its entitlement to summary judgment on those claims by submitting evidence that it had completed its work and was not at the work site at the time of plaintiff’s injury; and, that as a subcontractor, it did not have the “authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) or 241 (6) (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Urban v No. 5 Times Sq.

2014Consolidated established its entitlement to summary judgment on those claims by submitting evidence that it had completed its work and was not at the work site at the time of plaintiff’s injury; and, that as a subcontractor, it did not have the “authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) or 241 (6) (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Urban v No. 5 Times Sq.

2023Defendant waived his argument that the court improperly conducted a combined SORA hearing and rendered a single risk assessment determination on the two underlying convictions, without a combined risk assessment instrument (RAI) from the SORA Board, by joining the prosecution in requesting a consolidated hearing and proceeding on the People's submission of a combined RAI without requesting that one also be submitted by the Board ( see People v White , 53 NY2d 721, 723 [1981]).

2023Defendant waived his argument that the court improperly conducted a combined SORA hearing and rendered a single risk assessment determination on the two underlying convictions, without a combined risk assessment instrument (RAI) from the SORA Board, by joining the prosecution in requesting a consolidated hearing and proceeding on the People's submission of a combined RAI without requesting that one also be submitted by the Board ( see People v White , 53 NY2d 721, 723 [1981]).

2018We conclude, however, that petitioner waived such objections by not raising them on the record, despite being provided an opportunity to do so, and by participating fully in the hearing ( see Lebis Contr. v City of Lockport , 174 AD2d 1012, 1012 [4th Dept 1991]; Matter of Donnelly's Mobile Home Ct. v Simons , 142 AD2d 943, 943 [4th Dept 1988]; see also Matter of Mule v Town of Boston , 159 AD3d 1370 , 1371-1372 [4th Dept 2018]).

2018We conclude, however, that petitioner waived such objections by not raising them on the record, despite being provided an opportunity to do so, and by participating fully in the hearing ( see Lebis Contr. v City of Lockport , 174 AD2d 1012, 1012 [4th Dept 1991]; Matter of Donnelly's Mobile Home Ct. v Simons , 142 AD2d 943, 943 [4th Dept 1988]; see also Matter of Mule v Town of Boston , 159 AD3d 1370 , 1371-1372 [4th Dept 2018]).

2015The court properly denied the mother’s motion to vacate, as the record supports the court’s finding that the mother willfully defaulted at the consolidated hearing on the custody petition and the dispositional phase of the neglect petition (see Family Ct Act §§ 1042, 1055-b; see also Matter of Rozelle Tyrone Lee P., 19 AD3d 237, 238 [1st Dept 2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 839 [2005]).

2015The mother failed to explain in her motion papers why she stormed out of the courtroom and refused to participate in the proceedings (see Rozelle, 19 AD3d at 238 ).

2015The court properly denied the mother’s motion to vacate, as the record supports the court’s finding that the mother willfully defaulted at the consolidated hearing on the custody petition and the dispositional phase of the neglect petition (see Family Ct Act §§ 1042, 1055-b; see also Matter of Rozelle Tyrone Lee P., 19 AD3d 237, 238 [1st Dept 2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 839 [2005]).

2010Consent to adoption is not required of a parent who demonstrates an intent to forgo parental rights “as manifested by his or her failure for a period of six months to visit the child and communicate with the child or person having legal custody of the child, although able to do so” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; see Matter of Anonymous, 20 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]).