Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

In re Tashona Sharmaine A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 6, 2005

24 A.D.3d 135; 805 N.Y.S.2d 331

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Roberto O. (Lakeysha H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
L., KENNETH, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Kenneth L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
L., LASTANZEA, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Lastanzea L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Christopher James A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Shaianna Mae F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Michael J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Rashaun H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re Wilfredo A.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re Gina Rachel L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Edward Ramon B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2004, which, insofar as appealable, found that respondents permanently neglected the subject child and denied respondents’ motions to vacate their defaults at the dispositional hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As against respondent mother, the finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that notwithstanding petitioner’s diligent efforts to schedule visitation and refer her to therapy, and notwithstanding her superficial participation in the programs to which she was referred, she failed to attend a substantial number of visits and gained no insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child (see Matter of Jowell Lateefra B., 271 AD2d 366 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 760 [2000]). With respect to respondent father, the agency cannot be blamed for the lack of contact, there being clear and convincing evidence that it was unaware of his first incarceration and that he failed to communicate with it during his second incarceration (see Matter of Sasha R., 246 AD2d 1, 5 [1998]; Matter of Westchester County Dept, of Social Servs. [Terry W.], 207 AD2d 496, 497 [1994]). Respondents’ motions to vacate the dispositional determination were properly denied for failure *136to demonstrate meritorious defenses (see Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403 [1987]). Nor do they explain why they each waited over two months after their defaults to make a motion to vacate (see Matter of Baby Girl S., 240 AD2d 215 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 887 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.