Matter of Isaac Howard M. v Jewish Child Care Assn. of N.Y.

Matter of Matter of Isaac Howard M. v Jewish Child Care Assn. of N.Y. 2011 NY Slip Op 09201 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick, JJ.
6411B

[*1]6411-In re Isaac Howard M., and another, 6411A- Dependent Children Under the Age of 18 Years, etc., Fatima M., Respondent-Appellant.

v

Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Petitioner-Respondent,




Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for appellant.
Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn
M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2009, which, upon respondent-appellant mother's default and after conducting hearings, terminated her parental rights to the children upon findings that she had permanently neglected the subject children, and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 27, 2010, which denied respondent-appellant's motion to vacate her default at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court had discretion to deny the mother's request to adjourn the fact-finding hearing where her nonappearance was not explained (Family Court Act § 1048[a]; see Matter of Doran J., 266 AD2d 99 [1999]).

The mother's motion to vacate her default was properly denied where she did not provide either a reasonable excuse for her nonappearance or demonstrate a meritorious defense (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428, 428-429 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]). The mother's claim that she lacked money for transportation does not explain why she failed to notify either the court or her attorney that she could not appear. Moreover, she elected to schedule an appointment for services at the same date and time as the court proceeding. The mother also did not demonstrate that four years after placement, she had completed a drug treatment program or a mental health evaluation.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011

CLERK