| Matter of Anna Coral DeL. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03212 [50 AD3d 792] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Anna Coral DeL. SCO Family of Services,Respondent; Barbara C.K., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nicholas WilliamDeL. SCO Family of Services, Respondent; Barbara C.K., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In theMatter of Jimmy Elmer DeL. SCO Family of Services, Respondent; Barbara C.K., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Mitchell Katz of counsel), attorneyfor the children.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parentalrights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from somuch of three orders of disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Queens County(Hunt, J.), all dated April 26, 2006, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, upon anorder of fact-finding of the same court dated March 30, 2004, upon her default in appearing at thedispositional hearing, and upon an order of the same court dated March 16, 2006, denying hermotion to vacate her default, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody andguardianship of the children to the [*2]Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The orders of disposition were entered upon the mother's default in appearing at thedispositional hearing. However, the orders dated March 30, 2004 and March 16, 2006, arebrought up for review on the appeal from the orders of disposition (see CPLR 5501 [a][1]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). "Appellate review is not precludedbecause the mother may obtain review of 'matters which were the subject of contest below' " (Matter of Daquan Malik B., 6 AD3d428, 429 [2004], quoting James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3 [1967]; Matterof Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 457 [2002]).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the presentment agency established that it made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of DeajahShabri T., 44 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2007]). The Family Court's finding of permanentneglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d 136, 140 [1984]).
The determination of whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default iswithin the sound discretion of the Family Court (see Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539 [2006]; Matter of Vanessa F., 9 AD3d464, 464-465 [2004]). A parent seeking to vacate such an order in a termination of parentalrights proceeding must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and ameritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Miguel M.-R.B., 36 AD3d 613, 614 [2007]; Matter of Vanessa F., 9 AD3d464, 465 [2004]). The mother failed to demonstrate either of these requisite elements in hermotion to vacate the orders of disposition (see Matter of Miguel M.-R.B., 36 AD3d at614; Matter of Ricky V., 4 AD3d368, 368-369 [2004]; Matter of Male H., 179 AD2d 384, 385 [1992]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo andCarni, JJ., concur.