| Matter of Mariah A. (Hugo A.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06073 [109 AD3d 751] |
| September 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Mariah A. and Another, Children Allegedto be Abandoned. Hugo A., Appellant; The Children's Aid Society,Respondent. |
—[*1] Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), forrespondent. Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, attorney for the children.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or aboutAugust 22, 2012, which denied respondent father's motion to vacate an order, which,upon his default in failing to appear at the fact-finding hearing, terminated his parentalrights on the grounds of abandonment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent's motion tovacate the order terminating his parental rights upon his default because he failed todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for his absence from the court's May 17, 2011proceeding and a meritorious defense to the abandonment allegation (see Matter of Cain Keel L.[Derzerina L.], 78 AD3d 541 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 818[2011]). Respondent's proffered excuse that he was in Part 43 of the Family Court inreliance on the permanency hearing notice was unreasonable, since he was in court whenthe fact-finding hearing was scheduled for May 17, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in Part 1.However, the notices on which respondent claims to have relied indicate that thepermanency hearings were scheduled for 10:30 a.m. If respondent had indeed shown upat Part 43 at 10:30 a.m., he would have learned prior to 2:00 p.m. that he was not at thecorrect Part. In any event, a conclusory statement that a respondent was confused as tothe date or time of a hearing is not a reasonable excuse for failure to appear (see Matter of Jaynices D. [YeseniaDel V.], 67 AD3d 518 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008],lv dismissed 11 NY3d 909 [2009]). Prior to his default, respondent had alsofailed to appear at two of the five scheduled hearings without any explanation for suchfailure to appear.
The record also demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that respondentabandoned the children. His assertion that he visited them when he was "in theneighborhood and called, at a minimum, on holidays and birthdays" established nothingmore than sporadic and [*2]minimal attempts to maintaina parental relationship, which are insufficient to prevent a finding of abandonment(see Matter of Ravon Paul H., 161 AD2d 257 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Matter of Elvis EmilJ.C., 43 AD3d 710 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.