IN RE: Evan MALBRANCHE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauren Norton Lerner, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 8, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, upon, inter alia, the mother's failure to appear at a hearing, modified a prior order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (William M. Harrington, J.) dated November 16, 2012, so as to award the father sole legal custody and decision-making authority with respect to the parties’ child.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except insofar as it brings up for review the denial of the application of the mother's attorney to allow the mother to attend the hearing virtually (see CPLR 5511;  Matter of Anastasia N.A. [Latonia J.], 218 A.D.3d 563, 564, 192 N.Y.S.3d 575);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 8, 2024, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, the order appealed from was made upon the appellant's default in appearing at a scheduled hearing, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below (see Matter of Donald M.P. [Martinique P.], 223 A.D.3d 671, 672, 203 N.Y.S.3d 630;  Matter of Harlem H.H. [Coty H.], 218 A.D.3d 579, 581, 192 N.Y.S.3d 567).  Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the application of the mother's attorney to allow the mother to attend the hearing virtually (see Matter of Ramirez v. Colon, 225 A.D.3d 704, 705, 207 N.Y.S.3d 559;  Matter of Rodney v. Piombino, 225 A.D.3d 603, 604, 204 N.Y.S.3d 590).

Under the circumstances, the mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her attorney's application is without merit (see Matter of Rodney v. Piombino, 225 A.D.3d at 604, 204 N.Y.S.3d 590;  Matter of Shcherbyna v. Taylor, 221 A.D.3d 719, 720, 200 N.Y.S.3d 57).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.