Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

In re Evan Matthew A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 24, 2012

91 A.D.3d 538; 938 N.Y.2d 6

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Yadori Marie F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Yadori Marie F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Matter of Selah J. S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Eric R. v. Henry R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Tyrone F. v. Mariah O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Mishelys R. (Garland R.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Angelica S. (Cynthia C.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Raymond C. M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Zion Nazar H-S. (Shaniqua W.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Alani G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Alani G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Julian Michael G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

*539To vacate a Family Court’s order issued on default, upon failure to appear at either a fact-finding or dispositional hearing, the movant must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the allegations asserted (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]). Respondent’s purported excuse of illness was properly rejected since she failed to provide any documentation to substantiate her claim, and did not explain why she was unable to contact either the court or her attorney regarding her inability to attend the hearings of which she had notice (see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55 AD3d 320 [2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 909 [2009]).

Moreover, respondent did not provide a meritorious defense to the charges of permanent neglect. She proffered only a general claim to have been engaged in her service plan and failed to provide any details or documentation (see Matter of Christopher James A (Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.), 90 AD3d 515 [2011]). It is undisputed that during the applicable time period, respondent never completed any aspects of her service plan. In addition, respondent never challenged the finding that she failed to consistently visit with the child, which in and of itself, constituted permanent neglect (see Matter of Aisha C., 58 AD3d 471 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 706 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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