| Matter of Christopher James A. (Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09015 [90 AD3d 515] |
| Dcmbr 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher James A., a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Anne Elizabeth Pierre L., Appellant; New Alternatives for Children, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Office of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about February 3,2011, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate a dispositional order entered on orabout February 3, 2010, which, inter alia, upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding anddispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights on the ground of neglect and transferredcustody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of SocialServices for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent mother's motion to vacate her default was properly denied because she failed toestablish a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear for the fact-finding and dispositionalhearings and also failed to establish a meritorious defense to the petition to terminate her parentalrights (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Shedid not present detailed information or documentation to substantiate her excuse that she wasprevented from appearing at the hearings due to her job as a home health aide which required herto accompany a patient to a medical appointment at which she had to wait with the patient for along time and also due to a delay in public transportation (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428 [2010],lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]). In addition, she did not present a reasonable excusefor failing to apprise her counsel of her nonappearance (id.).
Respondent further failed to controvert the allegation of permanent neglect by showing thatshe had completed all of the required programs, maintained a suitable residence for the child, orobtained a source of income to support the child (see Matter of Shaianna Mae F. [Tsipora S.], 69 AD3d 437 [2010]).In addition, respondent's delay of nearly one year in moving to vacate weighed in favor ofdenying the motion (see Matter ofTashona Sharmaine A., 24 AD3d 135 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).
Respondent's argument that she was hospitalized for part of the one-year period relevant tothe petition is unpreserved for this Court's review (see Matter of Anthony P. [Shanae P.], 84 AD3d 510, 511 [2011]).As an alternative holding, we reject this argument on the merits (cf. Matter of Christopher V. [JazminV.], 72 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasseand Abdus-Salaam, JJ.