In re Evan Matthew A.
Opinion of the Court
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.