| Matter of Breaker v ACS-Kings |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04639 [129 AD3d 715] |
| June 3, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Tracy Breaker,Appellant, v ACS-Kings et al., Respondents. |
David Zaslavsky, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondentMercyfirst.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Stern ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), datedFebruary 11, 2014. The order dismissed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant is the maternal aunt of the subject child. She filed a petition pursuantto Family Court Act article 6, seeking custody of the child.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court properly dismissed thepetition on the ground that the appellant failed to serve a copy of the petition on thechild's putative father, or present admissible evidence showing the efforts made to effectservice on the putative father (see CPLR 308 [5]; Corbo v Stephens, 272AD2d 502, 502 [2000]; Cooper-Fry v Kolket, 245 AD2d 846, 847 [1997]).
Contrary to the appellant's further contention, the Family Court providently exercisedits discretion in denying her request for an adjournment. "The grant or denial of a motionfor 'an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of thetrial court' " (Matter ofSteven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006], quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; seeMatter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d 555, 555 [2007]; Matter of Paulino v Camacho,36 AD3d 821, 822 [2007]). "In making such a determination, the court mustundertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors" (Matter of Sicurella v Embro,31 AD3d 651, 651 [2006]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the factthat the need for an adjournment resulted from a lack of due diligence on the appellant'spart, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant'srequest (see generally Matter ofCa'leb R.D. [Mary D.S.], 121 AD3d 890, 891 [2014]; Diamond v Diamante, 57AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Matter of Venditto v Davis, 39 AD3d at 555;Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d at 822). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Austinand Miller, JJ., concur.