In re Francisco R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Francisco R.

19 A.D.3d 502, 796 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 502 (In re Francisco 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 Francisco R., 19 A.D.3d 502, 796 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J), dated April 22, 2004, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing.

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

“The determination whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court” (Matter of Samantha P., 297 AD2d 348 [2002]; see Matter of Samaria Ann B., 293 AD2d 532 [2002]). To vacate the order, the mother was obligated to show that there was a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Iris R., 295 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; Matter of Angel Joseph S., 282 AD2d 752 [2001]; Matter of Latisha I., 238 AD2d 340 [1997]). We agree with the Family Court that the mother did not make the requisite showing. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, 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 on the ground of abandonment, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J), dated April 22, 2004, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing.

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

“The determination whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court” (Matter of Samantha P., 297 AD2d 348 [2002]; see Matter of Samaria Ann B., 293 AD2d 532 [2002]). To vacate the order, the mother was obligated to show that there was a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Iris R., 295 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; Matter of Angel Joseph S., 282 AD2d 752 [2001]; Matter of Latisha I., 238 AD2d 340 [1997]). We agree with the Family Court that the mother did not make the requisite showing. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 502, 796 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-francisco-r-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack