Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Tina A. (In re Heavenly A.)
Decision Date | 07 June 2019 |
Docket Number | CAF 17–01464,79 |
Citation | 173 A.D.3d 1621,105 N.Y.S.3d 227 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF HEAVENLY A., Kurt A., and Mike A. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Tina A., Respondent, and Michael P., Respondent–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (ANN MAGNARELLI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed except insofar as respondent Michael P. challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss the petition against him, and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent-appellant (respondent) appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition that, inter alia, adjudged the subject children to be neglected. Prior to the fact-finding hearing, respondent moved to dismiss the neglect petition against him on the ground that he was not a person legally responsible for the children. Family Court reserved decision. Subsequently, respondent failed to appear at the fact-finding hearing and his attorney declined to participate in his absence. The court proceeded with the hearing and thereafter entered its order of fact-finding and disposition upon respondent's default.
Contrary to respondent's contention, because he failed to appear at the fact-finding hearing and his attorney, although present, did not participate in the hearing, the order was entered upon his default (see Matter of Shawn A. [Milisa C.B.], 85 A.D.3d 1598, 1598–1599, 924 N.Y.S.2d 902 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 713, 2011 WL 4916617 [2011] ; Matter of Brittany C. [Linda C.], 67 A.D.3d 788, 789, 891 N.Y.S.2d 80 [2d Dept. 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 702, 703, 2010 WL 547898 [2010] ). No appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511 ; Matter of Rottenberg v. Clarke, 144 A.D.3d 1627, 1627, 41 N.Y.S.3d 848 [4th Dept. 2016] ). Nevertheless, respondent's appeal from the order brings up for review "matters which were the subject of contest" before the court ( James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 [1967], rearg. denied 19 N.Y.2d 862, 280 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 227 N.E.2d 408 [1967] ; see Rottenberg, 144 A.D.3d at 1627, 41 N.Y.S.3d 848 ), i.e., respondent's motion to dismiss (see Brittany C., 67 A.D.3d at 789, 891 N.Y.S.2d 80 ).
Respondent contends that the court should have dismissed the neglect petition against him because he was not a person legally responsible for the children. We reject that contention. The term "person legally responsible" includes "the child's custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child's care at the relevant time" ( Family Ct Act § 1012[g] ). "A person is a proper respondent in an article 10 proceeding as an ‘other person legally responsible for the child's care’ if that person acts as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting" ( Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 796, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228 [1996] ; see Matter of Gary J. [Engerys J.], 154 A.D.3d 939, 940, 62 N.Y.S.3d 499 [2d Dept. 2017] ). ( Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d at 796, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228 ; see Gary J., 154 A.D.3d at 940–941, 62 N.Y.S.3d 499 ). The term includes the partner of a parent where that partner participates in the family setting on a regular basis and therefore shares responsibility for supervising the children (see Gary J., 154 A.D.3d at 941, 62 N.Y.S.3d 499 ).
Here, we conclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dinunzio v. Zylinski
...( Matter of Anita L. v. Damon N. , 54 A.D.3d 630, 631, 864 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see Matter of Heavenly A. [Michael P.], 173 A.D.3d 1621, 1622, 105 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Nevertheless, "notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in CPLR 5511 against an appeal from an order......
-
People v. Simpson
...period of her indeterminate sentence on this conviction must be one-third of the maximum period, not one-half as fixed by the court (see 173 A.D.3d 1621 Penal Law § 70.00[3][b] ). "Although the issue is not raised by either party, we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand" ( People v. Co......
-
Lechase Constr. Servs., LLC v. JM Bus. Assocs. Corp.
...in general, "[n]o appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party" ( Matter of Heavenly A. [Michael P.] , 173 A.D.3d 1621, 1622, 105 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2019] ). That rule does not apply, however, " ‘[w]here, as here, a party appears and contests an application......
-
Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Karen A. (In re Hayden A.)
...). Although "[n]o appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party" ( Matter of Heavenly A. [Michael P.] , 173 A.D.3d 1621, 1622, 105 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2019] ; see Matter of Maria P. [Anthony P.] , 182 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 121 N.Y.S.3d 700 [4th Dept. 2020] ), th......