Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: AHMED Z. ABDO, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. MALLOCHE A. AHMED, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHELE A. BROWN, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the phrase “on default” in the caption and the phrase “and Respondent having failed to appear” preceding the ordering paragraphs, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that granted sole custody of the subject children to petitioner father with supervised visitation to the mother. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in entering the order upon the mother's default based on her failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the mother “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, ‘[w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded’ “ (Matter of Pollard v. Pollard, 63 AD3d 1628, 1628 [4th Dept 2009]; see Matter of Kwasi S., 221 A.D.2d 1029, 1030 [4th Dept 1995] ). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
The mother's contention that she did not receive notice of the hearing is not preserved for our review and, in any event, the record establishes that the notice was properly served upon the mother's attorney, who represented the mother at the hearing (see generally Nuepert v. Nuepert, 145 AD3d 1643, 1643 [4th Dept 2016] ).
Finally, we conclude that the court did not err in awarding the father sole custody of the children with supervised visitation to the mother. “A custody determination by the trial court must be accorded great deference ․ and should not be disturbed where ․ it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Green v. Mitchell, 266 A.D.2d 884, 884 [4th Dept 1999]; see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174 [1982] ). Here, the court's determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 17–00730
Decided: June 29, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)