Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

In re Iris R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 17, 2002

295 A.D.2d 521; 744 N.Y.S.2d 685

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Ricky V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Matter of Deyquan M.B. (Lashon H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Raphanello J.N.L.L. (Rasheem L.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kenneth S. v. Bethzaida P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Mongitore v. Linz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Samantha B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Viergela A. Granham-Windham Services to Families & Children (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Brandon O. Miracle Makers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Joseph N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Wohl v. Wohl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Matthew Y. Ohel Children's Home & Family Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Coates v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Christopher G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Francisco R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Christina Dominique B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Porscha Monique J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Helena W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Jaiyeola-Akintunde J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from (1) so much of two fact-finding and dispositional orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), both dated June 7, 2000 (one as to each child), as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, terminated his parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner, Angel Guardian *522Children and Family Services, and (2) two orders of the same court, both dated December 28, 2000 (one as to each child), which denied his motion to vacate his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing.

Ordered that the appeals from so much of the orders dated June 7, 2000, as terminated the father’s parental rights upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from those portions of the orders which were entered upon the father’s default (see Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542); and it is further,

Ordered that the orders dated June 7, 2000, are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders dated December 28, 2000, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the father permanently neglected his children (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136).

To be relieved of his default, the father was required to establish both a reasonable excuse and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Matter of Irvin R., 257 AD2d 624; Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631). Although the father demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his default, he clearly failed to make any showing that he has a meritorious defense. The conclusory assertions contained in his moving papers, without more, were insufficient to justify vacating the default (see Matter of Shirley C., supra). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion (see Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403). Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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