Matter of Christopher James A. (Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.)

Matter of Matter of Christopher James A. (Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.) 2011 NY Slip Op 09015 Decided on December 15, 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 15, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6339

[*1]In re Christopher James A., etc., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.

and

Anne Elizabeth Pierre L., etc., Respondent-Appellant, New Alternatives for Children, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent.




Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.
Law Office of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn
M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2011, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate a dispositional order entered on or about February 3, 2010, which, inter alia, upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights on the ground of neglect and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent mother's motion to vacate her default was properly denied because she failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear for the fact-finding and dispositional hearings and also failed to establish a meritorious defense to the petition to terminate her parental rights (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). She did not present detailed information or documentation to substantiate her excuse that she was prevented from appearing at the hearings due to her job as a home health aide which required her to accompany a patient to a medical appointment at which she had to wait with the patient for a long time and also due to a delay in public transportation (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428, lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]). In addition, she did not present a reasonable excuse for failing to apprise her counsel of her nonappearance (id.).

Respondent further failed to controvert the allegation of permanent neglect by showing that she had completed all of the required programs, maintained a suitable residence for the child, or obtained a source of income to support the child (see Matter of Shaianna Mae F. [Tsipora S.], 69 AD3d 437 [2010]). In addition, respondent's delay of nearly one year in moving to vacate weighed in favor of denying the motion (see Matter of Tashona Sharmaine A., 24 AD3d 135 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).

Respondent's argument that she was hospitalized for part of the one-year period relevant to the petition is unpreserved for this Court's review (see Matter of Anthony P., 84 AD3d 510, [*2]511 [2011]). As an alternative holding, we reject this argument on the merits (cf. Matter of Christopher V., 72 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]).

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK