Matter of Sean Michael N. (Lydia T.--Shawn N.)

Matter of Sean Michael N. (Lydia T.--Shawn N.) 2013 NY Slip Op 03593 Decided on May 21, 2013 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 May 21, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Gische, JJ.
10120

[*1]10121-In re Sean Michael N., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Lydia T., Respondent-Appellant, Shawn N., Respondent, Edwin Gould Services for Children Petitioner-Respondent.



In re Sean Michael N., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Shawn N., Respondent-Appellant, Lydia T., Respondent, Edwin Gould Services for Children Petitioner-Respondent.




Elisa Barnes, New York, for Lydia T., appellant.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S.
Calderon of counsel), for Shawn N., appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the children.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Fernando H. Silva, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2012, which denied respondents parents' motions to vacate an order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 28, 2011, upon their default, which, upon findings of [*2]permanent neglect, terminated their parental rights to their children and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their absence from the proceeding and a meritorious defense to the petition (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]; Matter of Bibianamiet L.-M. [Miledy L.N.], 71 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2010]). Contrary to their assertions, they were responsible for knowing the time of the hearing. Their bare assertions that their respective attorneys would have presented evidence countering the allegations of permanent neglect were insufficient to establish a meritorious defense (see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55 AD3d 320, 321 [1st Dept 2008], lv dismissed 11 NY3d 909 [2009]).

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

ENTERED: MAY 21, 2013

CLERK