Opinion
2013-05-21
In re SEAN MICHAEL N., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Lydia T., Respondent–Appellant, v. Shawn N., Respondent, Edwin Gould Services for Children, Petitioner–Respondent. In re Sean Michael N., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Shawn N., Respondent–Appellant, Lydia T., Respondent, Edwin Gould Services for Children, Petitioner–Respondent.
Elisa Barnes, New York, for Lydia T., appellant. Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for Shawn N., appellant.
Elisa Barnes, New York, for Lydia T., appellant. Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for Shawn N., appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the children.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, FREEDMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Fernando H. Silva, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2012, which denied respondents parents' motions to vacate an order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 28, 2011, upon their default, which, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated their parental rights to their children and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondents failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their absence from the proceeding and a meritorious defense to the petition ( see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 A.D.3d 428, 901 N.Y.S.2d 178 [1st Dept. 2010], lv. dismissed15 N.Y.3d 766, 906 N.Y.S.2d 810, 933 N.E.2d 209 [2010];Matter of Bibianamiet L.–M. [Miledy L.N.], 71 A.D.3d 402, 897 N.Y.S.2d 39 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Contrary to their assertions, they were responsible for knowing the time of the hearing. Their bare assertions that their respective attorneys would have presented evidence countering the allegations of permanent neglect were insufficient to establish a meritorious defense ( see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55 A.D.3d 320, 321, 865 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. dismissed11 N.Y.3d 909, 873 N.Y.S.2d 523, 901 N.E.2d 1275 [2009] ).