| Matter of Evan Matthew A. (Jocelyn Yvette A.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00406 [91 AD3d 538] |
| Jnury 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Evan Matthew A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Jocelyn Yvette A.; New Alternatives for Children, Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Ambramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about September28, 2010, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice,entered on or about August 18, 2009, which upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding anddispositional hearings, found that she had neglected the subject child, terminated her parentalrights and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and theCommissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To vacate a Family Court's order issued on default, upon failure to appear at either afact-finding or dispositional hearing, the movant must establish both a reasonable excuse for thedefault and a meritorious defense to the allegations asserted (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [TamikaR.], 73 AD3d 428 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]). Respondent'spurported excuse of illness was properly rejected since she failed to provide any documentationto substantiate her claim, and did not explain why she was unable to contact either the court orher attorney regarding her inability to attend the hearings of which she had notice (see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55AD3d 320 [2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 909 [2009]).
Moreover, respondent did not provide a meritorious defense to the charges of permanentneglect. She proffered only a general claim to have been engaged in her service plan and failed toprovide any details or documentation (see Matter of Christopher James A. (Anne ElizabethPierre L.), 90 AD3d 515 [2011]). It is undisputed that during the applicable time period,respondent never completed any aspects of her service plan. In addition, respondent neverchallenged the finding that she failed to consistently visit with the child, which in and of itself,constituted permanent neglect (seeMatter of Aisha C., 58 AD3d 471 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 706 [2009]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.