| Matter of Giovanni Maurice D. (Wilner B.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07204 [99 AD3d 631] |
| October 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Giovanni Maurice D., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Wilner B., Appellant; New Alternatives for Children, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent. Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Anne-Marie Jolly, J.), entered on or about April 19,2011, which denied respondent father's motion to vacate orders of fact-finding and disposition ofthe same court and Judge, entered on or about January 19, 2011 and January 25, 2011, uponrespondent's default, terminating his parental rights to the subject child on the ground ofpermanent neglect, and committing custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissionerfor the Administration of Children's Services of New York City and petitioner agency for thepurpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion to vacate theorders terminating his parental rights and freeing the child for adoption upon his default becausehis moving papers failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his absence from the court'sproceedings on January 19, 2011 and January 25, 2011, and a meritorious defense to thepermanent neglect allegation (see Matterof Octavia Loretta R. [Randy McN.—Keisha W.], 93 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept2012]).
Respondent's assertion that he missed the January 19 hearing because he was confused as tothe proper date of the proceeding is not a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear since he waspresent in court when the date for the hearing was set and he took no steps to clear up any allegedconfusion by contacting his counsel (seee.g. Matter of Dominique Beyonce R. [Maria Isabel R.], 82 AD3d 984, 985 [2d Dept2011]). As to the January 25 hearing, respondent's explanation was not credible.
Respondent also failed to establish a meritorious defense to the permanent neglect allegation.His affidavit supporting vacatur of the default provides only generalized conclusory statementsthat are insufficient to establish a meritorious defense (Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55[*2]AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d909 [2009]).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.