In re Male T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Male T.

286 A.D.2d 506, 729 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8302

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

DecidedAugust 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 506 (In re Male T.) 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 Male T., 286 A.D.2d 506, 729 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated September 30, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate a dispositional order of the same court dated May 11, 1999, entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminating his parental rights to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect.

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

[507]*507The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings. The father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his absence or a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Irvin R., 257 AD2d 624; Matter of James Edward M., 250 AD2d 685; Matter of Male J., 214 AD2d 417). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, 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 permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated September 30, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate a dispositional order of the same court dated May 11, 1999, entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminating his parental rights to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect.

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

[507]*507The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings. The father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his absence or a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Irvin R., 257 AD2d 624; Matter of James Edward M., 250 AD2d 685; Matter of Male J., 214 AD2d 417). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 506, 729 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-male-t-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack