From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Antoinette C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2005
14 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5160

January 25, 2005.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 30, 1998, which denied respondent-appellant's motion to vacate an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 21, 1997, on default, denying respondent's motion to vacate an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 29, 1996, on default, terminating respondent's parental rights to the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.


Respondent's motion to vacate his default in appearing at the hearing on whether the petition to terminate his parental rights was properly served, which hearing was twice rescheduled when he failed to appear, was properly denied for failure to show a reasonable excuse for such repeated failure to appear (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403). It also appears that the motion was untimely made more than a year after respondent's attorney had actual notice of the order denying the motion to vacate the dispositional order (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Matter of Brittany J., 235 AD2d 310, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1086). In view of the foregoing, we do not consider whether respondent has a meritorious defense, although we note that his claim that he visited the child regularly is contradicted by the agency's records.


Summaries of

In re Antoinette C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2005
14 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In re Antoinette C

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CRYSTAL ANTOINETTE C., an Infant. ERIC L., Appellant; NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 25, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

In re Christian E

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate her default ( see…