Opinion
9415
05-28-2019
In re NATALIA M., Petitioner-Respondent, v. ODANE S., Respondent-Appellant.
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent. Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel J. Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent.
Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel J. Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Tom, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's motion to vacate his default for failing to appear at the March 1, 2017 hearing. His claim that he was confused as to when the custody hearing was to begin was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse, because it is belied by the transcripts of prior hearings, which show that he was present when the date and time for the March 1st hearing were selected (see Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.], 111 A.D.3d 418, 974 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The father's failure to maintain contact with his attorney and keep himself apprised of the status of the hearing showed that his default was due to an overall lack of attention to the proceeding (see Matter of Christina McK. v. Kyle S., 154 A.D.3d 548, 62 N.Y.S.3d 261 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
In view of the father's failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not determine whether there existed a meritorious defense to the mother's custody petition (see Matter of Tyrone F. v. Mariah O., 165 A.D.3d 433, 433–434, 85 N.Y.S.3d 46 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Were we to do so, we would agree with the trial court that respondent father's claims were unsubstantiated and conclusory.