Matter of Damian Richard A.

Matter of Damian Richard A. 2008 NY Slip Op 02746 [49 AD3d 458] March 27, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008

In the Matter of Damian Richard A., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Damian A., Sr., Appellant; Concord Family Services, Inc., Respondent.

—[*1] Lisa H. Blitman, New York City, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York City (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about June 1, 2006, which denied respondent father's motion to vacate a dispositional order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about May 12, 2006, which, upon his default in appearing at the underlying fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated his parental rights to the subject child on grounds of permanent neglect and committed custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioning agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to show either a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear for the fact-finding and dispositional hearings or a meritorious defense to the proceeding. His excuse that he was "out of town" because it was Easter week is insufficient and also does not explain why he failed to contact his attorney, the court, or the agency to advise of his unavailability (see Matter of Laura Mariela R., 302 AD2d 300 [2003]; Matter of Ashley Marie M., 287 AD2d 333 [2001]). In light of respondent's chronic failure to appear, the court properly went forward with the proceeding in his absence (see Matter of Kristen Simone V., 30 AD3d 174 [2006]). Respondent's assertion that he visited the child on a regular basis was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if we credited his assertion that he began attendance at the required programs in June 2005, approximately four months before the filing of the petition, respondent failed to [*2]establish that he complied with the service plan during the statutorily relevant time frame. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.