Opinion
06-16-2017
In the Matter of Carlos SANCHEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Alba ALVAREZ, Respondent–Respondent.
Hoppe & Associates, Inc., Buffalo (Bernadette M. Hoppe of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Respondent. Ronald M. Cinelli, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
Hoppe & Associates, Inc., Buffalo (Bernadette M. Hoppe of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.
Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Respondent.
Ronald M. Cinelli, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner father appeals from an order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to respondent mother, granted the father access to the child, and ordered that, as a "condition of such [a]ccess," the father "shall complete a program of [a]nger [m]anagement classes." We reject the father's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in denying his attorney's request for an adjournment of the hearing (see Matter of Sophia M.G.-K. [Tracey G.-K.], 84 A.D.3d 1746, 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 ; see also Matter of Latonia W. [Anthony W.], 144 A.D.3d 1692, 1693–1694, 41 N.Y.S.3d 643, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 914, 2017 WL 582524 ; Matter of VanSkiver v. Clancy, 128 A.D.3d 1408, 1408, 7 N.Y.S.3d 805 ). It is well settled that the determination whether to grant a request for an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Matter of Steven B., 6 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646 ; Matter of Cameron B. [Nicole C.], 149 A.D.3d 1502, 1503, 52 N.Y.S.3d 774 ; Matter of Biles v. Biles, 145 A.D.3d 1650, 1650, 42 N.Y.S.3d 886 ). "In making such a determination, the court must undertake a balanced consideration of all relevant factors" (matter of sicurella v. embRo, 31 a.d.3d 651, 651, 819 n.y.s.2d 75, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 717, 827 N.Y.S.2d 687, 860 N.E.2d 989 ; see Latonia W., 144 A.D.3d at 1693, 41 N.Y.S.3d 821). Here, the father's attorney "failed to demonstrate that the need for the adjournment ... was not based on a lack of due diligence on the part of the [father] or [his] attorney" ( Sophia M.G.-K., 84 A.D.3d at 1747, 922 N.Y.S.2d 907 ; see Matter of Venditto v. Davis, 39 A.D.3d 555, 555, 831 N.Y.S.2d 725 ).
We also reject the father's challenge to the court's directive that he complete an anger management program. It is well established that a court may direct a parent "to obtain counseling or therapy, as one of the aspects of a custody or visitation order, if such intervention will serve the [child's] best interests" ( Gadomski v. Gadomski, 256 A.D.2d 675, 677, 681 N.Y.S.2d 374 ; see Matter of Cross v. Davis, 298 A.D.2d 939, 940, 748 N.Y.S.2d 101 ), and here there is an ample evidentiary basis for the court's issuance of such a directive (see Cross, 298 A.D.2d at 940, 748 N.Y.S.2d 101 ; Gadomski, 256 A.D.2d at 677–678, 681 N.Y.S.2d 374 ). We conclude, however, that the court erred in ordering that the father complete a program of anger management classes as a condition of his access to the child (see Matter of Avdic v. Avdic, 125 A.D.3d 1534, 1536, 4 N.Y.S.3d 792 ; Shuchter v. Shuchter, 259 A.D.2d 1013, 1013, 688 N.Y.S.2d 323 ), instead of as a component of such access (see Matter of Ordona v. Cothern, 126 A.D.3d 1544, 1546, 6 N.Y.S.3d 860 ; see generally Matter of Cramer v. Cramer, 143 A.D.3d 1264, 1265, 38 N.Y.S.3d 867, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 913, 52 N.Y.S.3d 290, 74 N.E.3d 675 ; Matter of Jones v. Jones, 190 A.D.2d 1076, 1076, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1004 ). We modify the order accordingly.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by striking the word "condition" in the third ordering paragraph and substituting therefor the word "component," and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.