Opinion
25-25A-25B-25C-25D
January 24, 2002
Appeals from orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.), entered on or about April 6, 1999, which, inter alia, upon respondent-appellant father's default, found that appellant had permanently neglected the subject children and terminated his parental rights with respect to said children, committing custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's services of the City of New York for purposes of adoption, unanimously dismissed, without costs
MARY ELLEN SWEENEY, for Dependent Children,
MARY ANN BARILE, for Respondent-Appellant,
DOUGLAS H. REINIGER, for Petitioner-Respondent
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ
The orders from which appellant purports to appeal were entered upon his default and accordingly are not appealable by him (see, CPLR 5511; Matter of Ebony Monique A., 265 A.D.2d 171), and while appellant argues that the denial of his motion to vacate his default constituted error, the challenged denial of vacatur was never reduced to an appealable order and thus is not properly before us (see, CPLR 5512[a]; Matter of Juan Alejandro R., II, 221 A.D.2d 183). Were the challenged denial of vacatur reviewable, we would find no basis for disturbing it. Contrary to appellant's contention, his right to be present at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings was not absolute (see, Matter of Raymond Dean L., 109 A.D.2d 87) and his presence was properly dispensed with since his failures to appear at these hearings were only the latest of numerous absences by him at appointments and hearings scheduled in connection with these neglect proceedings, the long pendency of which has not been in the children's interest (see, Matter of James Carton K., III, 245 A.D.2d 374, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 809). Nor would we find that Family Court's denial of vacatur constituted an improper exercise of discretion. Appellant made no showing of a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing at the hearings and evidently has no meritorious defense to the termination petition (see,Matter of "Male" Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403)
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT