| Matter of Julian J.C. (Juan C.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04996 [96 AD3d 937] |
| June 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Julian J.C. Administration for Children's Serviceset al., Respondents; Juan C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Quinlan and Fields, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Ian Fields and Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent New York Foundling Hospital. Gerard P. Nolan, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights,the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated March 14, 2011, as, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that his consent to the subject adoption wasnot required, and transferred the rights of custody and guardianship of the subject child to theNew York City Children's Service and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the father's consent to the adoption of the subject childwas not required is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Jaden Dasani-Amru B. [RoyAlphonso B.], 74 AD3d 801 [2010]). The father failed to meet his burden ofestablishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the childthrough the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with thechild (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Seasia D., 10 NY3d 879,880 [2008], cert denied sub nom. Kareem W. v Mr. & Mrs. Anonymous, 555 US 1046[2008]; Matter of Sharissa G., 51AD3d 1019 [2008]; Matter ofHassan Lawrence W., 42 AD3d 573 [2007]).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining the father'srequest for an adjournment prior to making a disposition in this matter, since the record fails todemonstrate any "good cause shown" for an adjournment (Family Ct Act § 626 [a]; see Matter of Williams D. [VernettaBernadett D.], 82 AD3d 882 [2011]).
The father's remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (seeMatter of Marcena S., 103 AD2d 847 [1984]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ.,concur.