In re Dominique Beyonce R.

82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 577
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 984 (In re Dominique Beyonce R.) 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 Dominique Beyonce R., 82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

A parent seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in appearing at a dispositional hearing in a proceeding for the termination of his or her parental rights must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the disposition sought by the petitioner (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Matter of Princess M., 58 AD3d 854 [2009]; Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830 [2007]; Matter of David John D., 38 AD3d 661 [2007]; Matter of Miguel M.R.B., 36 AD3d 613 [2007]; Matter of Porscha Monique J., 21 AD3d 415 [2005]).

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s motion to vacate her default (see Matter of Capri Alexis R., 48 AD3d 821 [2008]; Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830 [2007]; Matter of Princess M., 58 AD3d 854 [2009]; Matter of Porscha (Monique J., 21 AD3d at 416). In light of the fact that the mother was present in the courthouse when the dispositional hearing was scheduled, her assertion that she did not know the correct time of the hearing was not a reasonable excuse for her default. Nor did the mother provide any proof that she had been instructed to appear at a different time. Thus, she did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default (see Matter of Capri Alexis R., 48 AD3d 821 [2008]; Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d at 831; Matter of David John D., 38 AD3d 661 [2007]; Matter of Porscha Monique J., 21 AD3d at 416). Moreover, the mother failed to es[986]*986tablish a potentially meritorious defense to the demand for relief in the petitions, which sought the termination of her parental rights (see Matter of Miguel M.-R.B., 36 AD3d 613 [2007]). Covello, J.E, Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Abella v. Szileszky
2019 NY Slip Op 8186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Ignatieva v. Sullivan
2019 NY Slip Op 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Reyna M.U.-A. (Isaac U.)
2018 NY Slip Op 4332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Anita J.U. (Jennifer A.)
2018 NY Slip Op 4331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Brandon G. (Tiynia M.)
2017 NY Slip Op 7599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Serwatka v. Serwatka
2017 NY Slip Op 1367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Liam Q. (Elizabeth P.)
132 A.D.3d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Giovanni Maurice D.
99 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Andrea C.B.B.
95 A.D.3d 1308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Davis v. Davis
84 A.D.3d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dominique-beyonce-r-nyappdiv-2011.