Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999

In re Irvin R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 19, 1999

257 A.D.2d 624; 684 N.Y.S.2d 255

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

King v. Commissioner & New York City Police Department (2d Cir. 2003)
In re Jenna C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Matter of Raphanello J.N.L.L. (Rasheem L.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Samantha B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Christian T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Iris R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re Angel Joseph S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re Male T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re Baby Boy P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 for neglect (Proceeding No. 1), and pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights (Proceeding No. 2), the appeals are from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Bogacz, J.), dated June 4, 1997, which denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of disposition of the same court entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings in Proceeding No. 1, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 4, 1997, which denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of disposition of the same court entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings in Proceeding No. 2.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the father’s motion to vacate his default in the neglect proceeding. The father could not establish that his *625nonappearance at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings was other than willful (see, Family Court Act § 1042).

In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the father’s motion to vacate his default in the proceeding to terminate his parental rights. The father failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see also, Matter of James Edward M., Ill, 250 AD2d 685; Matter of Ann D., 239 AD2d 575).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.