One who refuses to attend a hearing cannot claim that his absence was a denial of due process ( Burke v. Commissioner of Parole, 52 A.D.2d 589). Defendant's counsel appeared and contested plaintiff's motion for a commitment order on the merits without objecting to any alleged defects in the notice and warning required by Judiciary Law § 756. Thus, defendant waived the protections afforded by the statute ( Matter of Rappaport, 58 N.Y.2d 725; Franklin v. Leff, 192 A.D.2d 328, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 749; Matter of Keator v. Keator, 211 A.D.2d 987). Since defendant has no assets in his name, his monthly income, an allowance from his parents, not being subject to garnishment, and prior enforcement attempts, including financial penalties, having been ineffectual, punishment by commitment until the fine previously imposed, plus interest, is paid, is an appropriate remedy (Domestic Relations Law § 245).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.