Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, CPLR 5015 (a) is the proper statute under which her motion to vacate the orders dated May 22, 1991, must be reviewed (see, e.g., Matter of Nathalie A., 145 A.D.2d 629; Matter of "Male" Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403; Matter of Andrea M.T., 115 Misc.2d 1). So considered, we conclude that the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion.
Pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), the appellant had to provide a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear on the day of the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, as well as make a showing of a meritorious defense to the proceeding. Although the appellant claims to have been incarcerated at the time the hearing was scheduled, she did not explain why, at minimum, she failed to notify the court or her attorney of her difficulty. Moreover, in her affidavit she provided only a conclusory statement of her readiness and ability to resume the care of the three subject children. She did not controvert any of the evidence adduced at the inquest or address the allegations of permanent neglect made in the petitions. Under these circumstances, her motion to vacate her default was properly denied (Matter of Nathalie A., supra; see also, Matter of Linday E., 177 A.D.2d 276).
We have examined the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.