In re Tamel D., 2016–08340

• Citation: 156 A.D.3d 695,66 N.Y.S.3d 43
• Decision Date: 13 December 2017
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. N–7389–15,N–7390–15,V–18298–15,O–18200–15,V–18310–15,2016–08340
• Parties: In the MATTER OF TAMEL D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Taliyah B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), petitioner-respondent, v. Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, Administration for Children's Services, respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent, v. Curtiz J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4)
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

156 A.D.3d 695

66 N.Y.S.3d 43

In the MATTER OF TAMEL D. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent;

Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant,

Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Taliyah B. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent;

Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant,

Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)

In the Matter of Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), petitioner-respondent,

v.Curtiz J. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant,

Administration for Children's Services, respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)

In the Matter of Tanisha R.B. (Anonymous), respondent,

v.Curtiz J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4)

2016–08340

Docket Nos. N–7389–15

N–7390–15

V–18298–15

V–18310–15

O–18200–15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted - November 16, 2017

December 13, 2017

Joseph H. Nivin, Forest Hills, NY, for respondent-appellant in Proceeding Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and appellant in Proceeding No. 4.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Claude S. Platton and Eric Lee of counsel), for petitioner-respondent in Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent-respondent in Proceeding No. 3.

Ronna Gordon–Galchus, Fresh Meadows, NY, for respondent-respondent in Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner-respondent in Proceeding No. 3, and respondent in Proceeding No. 4.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler, Claire V. Merkine, and Sara Reisberg of counsel), attorney for the child Tamel D.

Ira J. Forman, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child Taliyah B.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated June 29, 2016. The order denied the father's motion to vacate, inter alia, an order of fact-finding and disposition of that court dated March 8, 2016, which, upon his failure to appear at a fact-finding hearing and after an inquest, found that he neglected the subject children.

ORDERED that the order dated June 29, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2015, the Administration for Children's Services filed petitions pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the father neglected the subject children by perpetrating acts of domestic violence against their mother. Thereafter, the mother filed a family offense petition and a custody petition against the father. On March 7, 2016, the father was not present for a fact-finding hearing, and the Family Court proceeded to an inquest. After the mother testified, and upon the father's default, the court issued orders relating to all of the proceedings, finding, among other things, that the father neglected the children. The father later moved to vacate the orders, offering as an excuse for his failure to attend the fact-finding hearing that he was feeling ill. The court denied his motion, and the father appeals.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's motion to vacate the orders entered upon his default. The father did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the fact-finding hearing, since his excuse...