Opinion
9917-9917A
09-26-2019
IN RE SARIYAH L.J., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Antonio J., Respondent–Appellant, v. The Children's Village, Petitioner–Respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, PLLC, New York (Melissa Wagshul of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, PLLC, New York (Melissa Wagshul of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Tom, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about October 9, 2018, which denied respondent's motion to vacate an order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 20, 2018, upon his default, which determined that respondent was a notice-only father, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from August 20, 2018 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order ( CPLR 5511 ).
Respondent failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.] , 73 A.D.3d 428, 901 N.Y.S.2d 178 [1st Dept. 2010], lv dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 766, 906 N.Y.S.2d 810, 933 N.E.2d 209 [2010] ). Respondent asserted that he was late because he chose to attend a meeting with his shelter worker, but he failed to provide any substantiating evidence or to explain why he made no attempt to contact his attorney, the Family Court, or the agency about his inability to appear at the hearing (see Matter of Ashley Marie M. , 287 A.D.2d 333, 731 N.Y.S.2d 166 [1st Dept. 2001] ). As for a meritorious defense, respondent's affidavit does not show that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with his child or provided the child with financial support according to his means (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ; Matter of Jonathan Logan P. , 309 A.D.2d 576, 765 N.Y.S.2d 506 [1st Dept. 2003] ; see also Matter of Heaven A.A. [Tyrone W.] , 130 A.D.3d 10, 15, 8 N.Y.S.3d 384 [2d Dept. 2015] ).
Respondent's contention that he was denied due process because the court dispensed with a dispositional hearing is unpreserved for review and, in any event, unavailing.