In re Graham-Windham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Graham-Windham

13 A.D.3d 379, 785 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14875

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 379 (In re Graham-Windham) 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 Graham-Windham, 13 A.D.3d 379, 785 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

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, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated November 6, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied her motion to vacate so much of an order of disposition of the same court dated April 28, 2003, as, upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, terminated her parental rights.

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

The Family Court properly concluded, after a hearing, that the mother failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, or a meritorious defense to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to vacate her default (see Matter of Helena W., 6 AD3d 541 [2004]; Matter of Jessica Dee D., 6 AD3d 435 [2004]).

[380]*380The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Fisher, 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, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated November 6, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied her motion to vacate so much of an order of disposition of the same court dated April 28, 2003, as, upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, terminated her parental rights.

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

The Family Court properly concluded, after a hearing, that the mother failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for her default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, or a meritorious defense to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to vacate her default (see Matter of Helena W., 6 AD3d 541 [2004]; Matter of Jessica Dee D., 6 AD3d 435 [2004]).

[380]*380The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 379, 785 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-graham-windham-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack