In re Fa'Shon S. Heart Share Human Services
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Clarence D.H. (Fidelina A.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Deyquan M.B. (Lashon H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- 46 Downing Street LLC v. Thompson (Civil Court of the City of New York 2013)
- 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 Elijah J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Joseph N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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 a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated February 9, 2006, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, and upon denying his motion to vacate his default, inter alia, terminated his parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The father’s incarceration at the time of the fact-finding hearing was not a reasonable excuse for his default because he provided no explanation as to why he did not notify his attorney or the court of his imprisonment (see Matter of Tiffany L., 294 AD2d 365, 366 [2002]; Matter of Raymond Anthony A., 192 AD2d 529, 530 [1993]). Since the father established neither a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear nor a meritorious defense to the proceeding, the Family Court properly denied the father’s motion to vacate his default (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Michael William O., 16 AD3d 511 [2005]).
The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.