IN RE: Mykhailo SHCHERBYNA (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandparents appeal from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Mary E. Porter, J.), both dated February 1, 2023.  The orders, one as to each child, upon the maternal grandparents’ failure to appear on the return date and the denial of their application for leave to appear in court “by audio-visual means” or other electronic means, dismissed their petition for visitation without prejudice.

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders are dismissed except insofar as they bring up for review the denial of the maternal grandparents’ application for leave to appear in court “by audio-visual means” or other electronic means (see CPLR 5511);  and it is further

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, the orders appealed from were made upon the default of the maternal grandparents (hereinafter together the grandparents) in appearing, review is limited to matters which were the subject of the contest below (see Matter of Paulino v. Camacho, 36 A.D.3d 821, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496).  Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the grandparents’ application for leave to appear in court “by audio-visual means” or other electronic means (see Matter of Kalantarov v. Kalantarova, 109 A.D.3d 471, 969 N.Y.S.2d 920;  Matter of Krische v. Sloan, 100 A.D.3d 758, 953 N.Y.S.2d 876).

Under the facts of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the grandparents’ application for leave to appear in court “by audio-visual means” or other electronic means (see Domestic Relations Law § 75–j;  Matter of Kalantarov v. Kalantarova, 109 A.D.3d 471, 969 N.Y.S.2d 920;  Matter of Krische v. Sloan, 100 A.D.3d 758, 953 N.Y.S.2d 876).

CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.