| Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09132 [79 AD3d 745] |
| December 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lorraine D., Appellant, v Widmack C. et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Heather L. Kalachman and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the children.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross,J.H.O.), dated October 22, 2009, as denied that branch of her motion which was, in effect, to vacateso much of an order of the same court dated June 4, 2009, as, upon her default, dismissed her petitionsfor custody of the children Daquan C., Latavia C., and Lyasia P., and awarded custody of the childLyasia P. to the maternal grandmother, and (2) from a supplemental order of the same court, also datedOctober 22, 2009, which awarded her supervised visitation with the children Daquan C. and LataviaC.
Ordered that the order dated October 22, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the supplemental order dated October 22, 2009, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default is required to demonstrate areasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action ordefense (see Wild v Target Corp., 74AD3d 799 [2010]; Rivera vKomor, 69 AD3d 833 [2010]; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559, 559-560 [2008]). Here, themother, who had a history of defaulting on her petitions in the Family Court, failed to satisfy eitherrequirement. Accordingly, there was no basis for vacatur.
Additionally, the mother contends that she is entitled to unsupervised visitation with the childrenDaquan C. & Lorraine C. "The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter leftto Family Court's sound discretion . . . and its findings, to which deference is to beaccorded, will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record" (Matter of Smith v Roberts, 67 AD3d688, 689 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Family Court's determination thatsupervised visitation would be in the children's best interests has a sound basis in the record(id.; see [*2]Matter of VanDee v Bean, 66 AD3d 1253, 1255 [2009]; Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222,228 [2005]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.