Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

In re Samantha P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 19, 2002

297 A.D.2d 348; 746 N.Y.2d 844; 746 N.Y.S.2d 844; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7974

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Deyquan M.B. (Lashon H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Kenneth S. v. Bethzaida P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Viergela A. Granham-Windham Services to Families & Children (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Joseph N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Matthew Y. Ohel Children's Home & Family Services (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)

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

The determination whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court (see Matter of Samaria Ann B., 293 AD2d 532; Matter of Latisha I., 238 AD2d 340). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to vacate her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings since she did not offer a reasonable excuse for twice failing to appear in court on dates scheduled for commencement of the hearing, and did not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the termination petition (see Matter of Samaria Ann B., supra; Matter of Tiffany L., 294 AD2d 365; Matter of Adam S., 287 AD2d 723; Matter of Willie Mays J., 287 AD2d 504, Iv denied 97 NY2d 610). We note that the mother’s recent rehabilitative efforts do not constitute a meritorious defense (see Matter of Adam S., supra). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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