In re Wesley Antonio C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wesley Antonio C.

268 A.D.2d 299, 702 N.Y.S.2d 34, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 453

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 18, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1998, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s motion to vacate his default was properly denied in light of his failure to present either a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the fact-finding hearing or a meritorious defense to the petition alleging permanent neglect (see, Matter of Derrick T., 261 AD2d 108; Matter of Tyrone W., 223 AD2d 367). Although respondent claimed he had a relative contact the caseworker to inform her that he was incarcerated, he failed to provide the court with the name of the relative or any proof that such contact was actually made. Similarly unsubstantiated and, indeed, contradicted by the testimony of the caseworker, was respondent’s assertion that he complied with the agency’s requirements, visited the children, and cooperated with the agency in an effort to plan for the return of the children to his care. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1998, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s motion to vacate his default was properly denied in light of his failure to present either a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the fact-finding hearing or a meritorious defense to the petition alleging permanent neglect (see, Matter of Derrick T., 261 AD2d 108; Matter of Tyrone W., 223 AD2d 367). Although respondent claimed he had a relative contact the caseworker to inform her that he was incarcerated, he failed to provide the court with the name of the relative or any proof that such contact was actually made. Similarly unsubstantiated and, indeed, contradicted by the testimony of the caseworker, was respondent’s assertion that he complied with the agency’s requirements, visited the children, and cooperated with the agency in an effort to plan for the return of the children to his care. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

In re Wesley Antonio C., 268 A.D.2d 299, 702 N.Y.S.2d 34, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

268 A.D.2d 299 (In re Wesley Antonio C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related