You are here: / / MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY...

MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined the matter should not have been disposed of based upon the mother’s purported default and mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment should have been granted. The court noted that when, as here, a party’s attorney is present and participates in the proceeding a default finding is improper:

​

“As we have repeatedly held, a respondent who fails to appear personally in a matter but nonetheless is represented by counsel who is present when the case is called is not in default in that matter” … . Moreover, inasmuch as the mother’s counsel objected on ten occasions during the inquest, this is not a situation where a default could be found based, at least in part, upon counsel’s ” election to stand mute’ ” during the inquest … . …

​

We further agree with the mother that the court abused its discretion in denying her counsel’s request to adjourn the hearing. The request was based on the fact that the mother was unable to attend the hearing owing to illness. It is well settled that the grant or denial of a request for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Here, the record demonstrates that the mother contacted her counsel and petitioner prior to the hearing to report her illness, that the proceedings in this matter were not protracted, that the mother personally appeared at all prior proceedings, and that the request for an adjournment was the mother’s first… . Matter of Cameron B., 2017 NY Slip Op 03299, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEFAULT (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ADJOURNMENTS (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
53-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DENY DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MANAGER OF PLAINTIFF BAR PUSHED A MAN DOWN A SET OF STAIRS CAUSING FATAL INJURIES; THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSION IN DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED AND THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE BAR (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY DEVICES WERE REQUIRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN... FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER COUNSELING AS A PREREQUISITE...