IN RE: KASEEM J. and Rokiem J. (2008)

 Respondent mother appeals from an order that terminated her parental rights with respect to two of her children, committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner and freed them for adoption.   Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a suspended judgment with respect to one of the children (see Matter of Jose R., 32 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 821 N.Y.S.2d 719, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 718, 827 N.Y.S.2d 689, 860 N.E.2d 991).  “Although [the mother] had made some progress after the filing of the petition, the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that ․ any progress that [she] made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [child's] unsettled familial status' ” (id.;   see Matter of Noemi D., 43 A.D.3d 1303, 842 N.Y.S.2d 808, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 814, 848 N.Y.S.2d 26, 878 N.E.2d 609).   “The court's determination that [the mother] was not likely to change sufficiently to enable her to parent the children is entitled to great deference” (Matter of Brendan S., 39 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 834 N.Y.S.2d 602;  see Matter of Danielle N., 31 A.D.3d 1205, 817 N.Y.S.2d 841;  Matter of Philip D., 266 A.D.2d 909, 698 N.Y.S.2d 139).

 We reject the further contention of the mother that the court abused its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment to enable her to present the testimony of two witnesses (see Matter of Alexander James R., 48 A.D.3d 820, 853 N.Y.S.2d 136;  Matter of Clarence S., 28 A.D.3d 1253, 813 N.Y.S.2d 604, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 706, 837 N.Y.S.2d 1, 868 N.E.2d 662;  see generally Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447).   The mother had ample opportunity to subpoena those witnesses but did not do so until the day before she wanted them to testify, months after the hearing began.   In addition, the mother “was unable to give any indication that the testimony [of the witnesses] would be favorable to [her]” (Clarence S., 28 A.D.3d at 1254, 813 N.Y.S.2d 604;  see Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d at 283-284, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447;  Alexander James R., 48 A.D.3d 820, 853 N.Y.S.2d 136).

Finally, the mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that the children had conflicting interests and thus should not have been jointly represented by the same law guardian (see Matter of Brown v. Marr, 23 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 804 N.Y.S.2d 181;  Matter of Carrieanne G., 15 A.D.3d 850, 789 N.Y.S.2d 371, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 709, 797 N.Y.S.2d 816, 830 N.E.2d 1145;  see also Matter of Wood v. Hargrave, 292 A.D.2d 795, 739 N.Y.S.2d 331, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 608, 746 N.Y.S.2d 692, 774 N.E.2d 757) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see Matter of Smith v. Smith, 241 A.D.2d 980, 667 N.Y.S.2d 141;  cf. Matter of Brooke D., 193 A.D.2d 1100, 598 N.Y.S.2d 633, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 734, 602 N.Y.S.2d 794, 622 N.E.2d 294).   The record establishes that the Law Guardian properly represented the children individually.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: