What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the neglect finding because the mother defaulted at the fact-finding hearing and her counsel did not contest the case; it also affirmed the denial of her request for an adjournment.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the respondent mother (Aissatou T.), the child, and the Administration for Children's Services in the underlying neglect proceeding.

Why couldn't the court review the neglect finding?

Because the neglect finding was entered after the mother defaulted and her attorney chose not to contest the hearing, appellate review of that finding is barred as a matter of procedure.

What happened with the adjournment request?

The court found the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjournment because the mother had prior adjournments, adequate notice, and no adequate excuse for missing the final hearing.

Can the mother still seek further review?

This decision dismissed the appeal as to the default-based neglect finding and affirmed the denial of adjournment; options such as leave to reargue or other extraordinary relief are limited and should be discussed with counsel promptly.

Matter of M.S. (Aissatou T.)

Docket Docket No. NA-31221/23|Appeal No. 6530|Case No. 2025-02764|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyDismissed

Filed: May 5, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Dismissed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02804
Docket numbers: Docket NoNA-31221/23Appeal No6530Case No2025-02764

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition in a Family Court neglect proceeding entered after respondent mother's default at the hearing

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed a Family Court order entered after the mother defaulted at a fact-finding hearing in a neglect proceeding concerning her child. Because the mother's attorney, after consulting with the absent mother, declined to contest the allegations at the final hearing, the court held that no appeal lies from an order entered on default and dismissed the appeal of the neglect finding. The court nevertheless reviewed and affirmed the denial of the mother's request for an adjournment, finding no abuse of discretion given the repeated prior adjournments, adequate notice, and the mother's choice to travel instead of attending the hearing.

Issues Decided

Whether an appeal lies from a Family Court neglect finding entered on the respondent's default at a fact-finding hearing
Whether Family Court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's request for an adjournment of the final fact-finding hearing

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that appeals generally do not lie from orders entered on default when counsel, after consulting with the absent client, elects not to contest the hearing, so the neglect finding is not reviewable. On the adjournment issue, the court found no abuse of discretion because the mother had prior adjournments, received adequate notice, and chose to travel instead of appearing, and her attorney failed to provide an adequate excuse for her absence.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 5511
Matter of Michael T.L. [Schadracia L. — Micka L.]236 AD3d 519 (1st Dept 2025)
Matter of Darlene H. v Abdus R.204 AD3d 550 (1st Dept 2022)

Parties

Respondent-Appellant: Aissatou T.
Petitioner-Respondent: Administration for Children's Services
Attorney: Randall S. Carmel (for appellant)
Attorney: Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel; Susan Paulson (of counsel) (for respondent)
Attorney: Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society; Amy Hausknecht (attorney for the child)
Judge: Ashley B. Black (Family Court, Bronx County)
Judge: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; Kapnick; Rodriguez; Pitt-Burke; O'neill Levy (Appellate Division)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-05
Underlying order entered: 2025-03-20

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel about further relief
If the mother believes procedural errors or exceptional circumstances exist, she should consult her attorney immediately to evaluate options like a motion to vacate the default in Family Court or other extraordinary appellate relief.
2
Consider motion to vacate default in Family Court
A timely motion to vacate the default with a credible excuse for nonappearance and a meritorious defense may be the appropriate path to reopen the fact-finding hearing.
3
Prepare for disposition and services
If the neglect finding remains in effect, the mother should coordinate with counsel and ACS about the disposition, any required services, and steps to comply with court orders affecting custody or reunification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the neglect finding because the mother defaulted at the fact-finding hearing and her counsel did not contest the case; it also affirmed the denial of her request for an adjournment.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the respondent mother (Aissatou T.), the child, and the Administration for Children's Services in the underlying neglect proceeding.
Why couldn't the court review the neglect finding?: Because the neglect finding was entered after the mother defaulted and her attorney chose not to contest the hearing, appellate review of that finding is barred as a matter of procedure.
What happened with the adjournment request?: The court found the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjournment because the mother had prior adjournments, adequate notice, and no adequate excuse for missing the final hearing.
Can the mother still seek further review?: This decision dismissed the appeal as to the default-based neglect finding and affirmed the denial of adjournment; options such as leave to reargue or other extraordinary relief are limited and should be discussed with counsel promptly.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of M.S. (Aissatou T.) - 2026 NY Slip Op 02804

Matter of M.S. (Aissatou T.)

2026 NY Slip Op 02804

May 5, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

In the Matter of M.S., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Aissatou T., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026

Docket No. NA-31221/23|Appeal No. 6530|Case No. 2025-02764|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.

Appeal from order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about March 20, 2025, which, upon respondent mother's default, determined that the mother neglected the subject child, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as no appeal lies from an order entered on default. That part of the order which denied the mother's request for an adjournment,

unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Generally, no appeal lies from an order entered on default (
see
CPLR 5511,
Matter of Michael T.L. [Schadracia L. — Micka L.]
, 236 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2025]). Since the mother's attorney, after consulting with her absent client, elected to remain silent for the final session of the fact finding hearing and did not contest the issues surrounding the mother's use of excessive corporal punishment, the Family Court's neglect finding are not properly before this Court (
see Matter of Donald M.P. [Martinique P.]
, 223 AD3d 671, 671 [2d Dept 2024];
see also Matter of Aminata S. v Ndongo D.
, 230 AD3d 1078, 1078 [1st Dept 2024]). Were we to review the mother's arguments, we would find that the neglect finding, which was based on a caseworker's testimony describing the mother's use of a wire or cord to strike the child, pictures of line-shaped scars on the child's arms, documentary evidence that the child had swelling behind an ear, and the child's out-of-court statements that the mother frequently used excessive corporal punishment, was amply supported by the evidence (
see Matter of Liza F. [Bon F.]
, 177 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2019];
Matter of Jayden R. [Jacqueline C.]
, 134 AD3d 638, 638-639 [1st Dept 2015]).

The denial of the mother's request for an adjournment at the fact-finding hearing is appealable because that request was "the subject of contest below" (
see Matter of Darlene H. v Abdus R.
, 204 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2022],
lv denied
38 NY3d 911 [2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Nevertheless, we find that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjournment, as the mother's attorney did not provide an adequate excuse for her client's failure to appear at the final session of the fact-finding hearing (
see Matter of L.R.E.

[LaPorsche E.]
, 243 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2025];
Matter of Nautica Skyy W. [Amber NY-Cole W.]
, 198 AD3d 589, 589 [1st Dept 2021]). Indeed, the denial was justified by the facts that the mother was granted repeated adjournments to explore settlement, visit family in Mali, and address the child's medical issues, and had sufficient notice of the hearing date but chose to travel to visit family again instead of attending the hearing (
see Matter of Naethael Makai A. [Adwoa A.]
, 135 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 5, 2026