IN RE: JAZMINE M. (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order by which Family Court, inter alia, terminated the father’s parental rights based upon his admission that he permanently neglected the subject child. We reject the father’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment of the dispositional hearing. Initially, we conclude that the father preserved his contention inasmuch as he requested the adjournment (cf. Matter of Jaydalee P. [Codilee R.], 156 A.D.3d 1477, 1477, 67 N.Y.S.3d 371 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904, 2018 WL 1957464 [2018]; see generally Matter of Cassini, 182 A.D.3d 1, 5-8, 118 N.Y.S.3d 702 [2d Dept. 2020]). Nevertheless, “[t]he granting [or denial] of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447 [1984]), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in adjourning the dispositional hearing for 10 weeks rather than the four months that the father requested.

Contrary to the father’s further contention, the court properly denied his request for a suspended judgment. A suspended judgment is a “brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 [1992]). Although the father participated in several programs in prison, “he had not made progress sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [child’s] unsettled familial status” (Matter of Valentina M.S. [Darrell W.], 154 A.D.3d 1309, 1311, 63 N.Y.S.3d 625 [4th Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Lennox M. [Sarah M.-S.], 173 A.D.3d 1668, 1670, 103 N.Y.S.3d 210 [4th Dept. 2019]), and “even if the [father] were to be released from incarceration in the near future, [ ]he would still need to address the issues that led to the [child’s] removal in the first instance” (Lennox M., 173 A.D.3d at 1670, 103 N.Y.S.3d 210).

We reject the further contention of the father that he was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as he “did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (Matter of Brown v. Gandy, 125 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 3 N.Y.S.3d 486 [4th Dept. 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).