| Matter of Shavenon N. (Miledy L.N.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01682 [71 AD3d 401] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Shavenon N., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Miledy L.N., Also Known as Jasmin Miledy L., Appellant; Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), entered January 8, 2009, which,insofar as it denied respondent mother's motion to vacate a dispositional order, same court andJudge, entered on or about September 17, 2008, following an inquest upon her default inappearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, which found that respondent hadderivatively neglected the child and committed his custody to the Commissioner of SocialServices until completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the mother's motion to vacateher default in appearing on September 17, 2008 as she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excusefor the default and a meritorious defense to the neglect cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a] [1]; Matter of Robert B. v TinaQ., 40 AD3d 473 [2007]).
The mother's purported reliance on an adjourn slip for September 19, 2008, wasunreasonable given her appearance in court on March 28, 2008 and July 21, 2008, at which timethe September 17 date was selected and confirmed. Even if the photocopy of the adjourn slipannexed to the motion were authentic and caused confusion, it was at odds with the selected andconfirmed court dates and the mother should have clarified any resulting confusion, especiallywhere she had used the same excuse in connection with an earlier failure to appear (see Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d830 [2007]; Matter of ChristianT., 12 AD3d 613 [2004]). Further, the mother's unsubstantiated and conclusoryassertion of partial compliance with a dispositional order entered in neglect proceedings as to hertwo older children and bald claim that compliance with other aspects of the dispositional orderwere no longer necessary at the time of the subject child's birth, are insufficient to establish a[*2]meritorious defense to the claim of derivative neglect (see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55AD3d 320 [2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 909 [2009]; Matter of Kimberly Carolyn J., 37AD3d 174 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 968 [2007]). Concur—Gonzalez,P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.