Matter of Damian Richard A.
2008 NY Slip Op 02746 [49 AD3d 458]
March 27, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


In the Matter of Damian Richard A., Jr., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Damian A., Sr., Appellant; Concord Family Services, Inc.,Respondent.

[*1]Lisa H. Blitman, New York City, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York City (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel),for respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about June 1,2006, which denied respondent father's motion to vacate a dispositional order of the same courtand Judge, entered on or about May 12, 2006, which, upon his default in appearing at theunderlying fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated his parental rights to the subjectchild on grounds of permanent neglect and committed custody and guardianship of the child tothe petitioning agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York for thepurpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to show either a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear for thefact-finding and dispositional hearings or a meritorious defense to the proceeding. His excusethat he was "out of town" because it was Easter week is insufficient and also does not explainwhy he failed to contact his attorney, the court, or the agency to advise of his unavailability(see Matter of Laura Mariela R., 302 AD2d 300 [2003]; Matter of Ashley MarieM., 287 AD2d 333 [2001]). In light of respondent's chronic failure to appear, the courtproperly went forward with the proceeding in his absence (see Matter of Kristen Simone V., 30 AD3d 174 [2006]).Respondent's assertion that he visited the child on a regular basis was unsubstantiated.Furthermore, even if we credited his assertion that he began attendance at the required programsin June 2005, approximately four months before the filing of the petition, respondent failed to[*2]establish that he complied with the service plan during thestatutorily relevant time frame. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire andMoskowitz, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.