In re Ann D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ann D.

239 A.D.2d 575, 658 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 575 (In re Ann D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ann D., 239 A.D.2d 575, 658 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated July 14, 1995, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a fact-finding and dispositional order of the same court, dated September 15, 1994, made upon her default, finding that she had neglected the subject child and thereupon terminating her parental rights.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that a party seeking to be relieved of a default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Matter of Latisha L, 238 AD2d 340). Here, although the mother had a reasonable excuse for her default, she clearly failed to make any showing of 'a meritorious defense. The conclusory assertions contained in her moving papers are insufficient to justify vacating the default (see, Matter of Shirley C, 145 AD2d 631, 632). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated July 14, 1995, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a fact-finding and dispositional order of the same court, dated September 15, 1994, made upon her default, finding that she had neglected the subject child and thereupon terminating her parental rights.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that a party seeking to be relieved of a default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Matter of Latisha L, 238 AD2d 340). Here, although the mother had a reasonable excuse for her default, she clearly failed to make any showing of 'a meritorious defense. The conclusory assertions contained in her moving papers are insufficient to justify vacating the default (see, Matter of Shirley C, 145 AD2d 631, 632). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 575, 658 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ann-d-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack