In re Damian Richard A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Damian Richard A.

49 A.D.3d 458, 856 N.Y.2d 43

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 458 (In re Damian Richard A.) 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 Damian Richard A., 49 A.D.3d 458, 856 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[459]*459Respondent 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 establish that he complied with the service plan during the statutorily relevant time frame. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

[459]*459Respondent 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 establish that he complied with the service plan during the statutorily relevant time frame. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 458, 856 N.Y.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-damian-richard-a-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack