Matter of William Jamal W. Jr. v Marjorie C.

Annotate this Case
Matter of William Jamal W. Jr. v Marjorie C. 2011 NY Slip Op 07926 Decided on November 10, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 10, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
5978

[*1]In re William Jamal W. Jr., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

v

Marjorie C., Respondent-Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner-Respondent.




Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings-on-Hudson, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 22, 2010, which, to the extent appealable, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent's parental rights to the subject child, on respondent's default, and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court acquired jurisdiction over respondent when respondent appeared in court on January 28, 2010, and neither she nor her counsel objected to the manner of the service of the summons, despite the omission of the return date therefrom (see Family Court Act § 167).

No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). However, the denial of respondent's counsel's request to adjourn the inquest and dispositional hearing is appealable because that request was "the subject of contest below" (see James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3 [1967]). We find that the court properly declined to grant the adjournment, having warned respondent on the preceding court date that it would proceed to inquest if she failed to appear (see Matter of Cain Keel L. [Derzerina L.], 78 AD3d 541 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 818 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 10, 2011 [*2]

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.