| Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03171 [127 AD3d 982] |
| April 15, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma,Respondent, v Anthony Valance Washington,Appellant. |
Herman Kaufman, Rye, N.Y., for appellant.
Fersch Petitti LLC, New York, N.Y. (Danielle R. Petitti of counsel), forrespondent.
Paul B. Guttenberg, Syosset, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.),dated October 8, 2013. The order, after a default and after an inquest, granted themother's petition for custody of the subject child, directed that the father's visitation withthe child be supervised, and granted the mother's application for an award of anattorney's fee.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofaras it brings up for review the denial of the father's request for an adjournment (seeCPLR 5511; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536 [1979]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.
Where, as here, an order is made upon the appellant's default, review is limited to"matters which were the subject of contest below" (James v Powell, 19 NY2d249, 256 n 3 [1967]; see Matterof Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107 AD3d 907, 908 [2013]; Brown v DataCommunications, 236 AD2d 499 [1997]). Accordingly, in this case, review islimited to the denial of the father's request for an adjournment at the conclusion of thefirst day of the custody hearing (see Matter of Angie N.W. [Melvin A.W.], 107AD3d at 908; Matter ofTripp, 101 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2012]; Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d 821 [2007]).
Whether to grant a party's request for an adjournment is a matter resting within thesound discretion of the Family Court (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; Matter of Winfield vGammons, 105 AD3d 753 [2013]). The court must consider all relevant factorsin making the determination (see Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d at 1138; Matter of Sicurella v Embro,31 AD3d 651 [2006]). Here, in light of, inter alia, the father's history of missingcourt dates based on his unsubstantiated claims of impoverishment, the length of thependency of the proceeding, and the merits of the proceeding, the Family Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment (seeMatter of Tripp, 101 AD3d at 1138-1139; Matter of Willie Ray B. [Deanna W.B.], 77 AD3d 657[2010]; Matter of Sanaia L.[Corey W.], 75 AD3d 554 [2010]; Matter of Dakota B. [Brigitta B.], 73[*2]AD3d 763 [2010]; Matter of Amber Megan D., 54AD3d 338 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.