Matter of Iris R.
Decision Date | 17 June 2002 |
Citation | 295 A.D.2d 521,744 N.Y.S.2d 685 |
Parties | In the Matter of IRIS R., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.<BR>ANGEL GUARDIAN CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Respondent;<BR>JOSE R., Appellant, et al., Respondents.<BR>In the Matter of DELILAH R., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.<BR>ANGEL GUARDIAN CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Respondent;<BR>JOSE R., Appellant, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the orders dated December 28, 2000, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the father permanently neglected his children (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136).
To be relieved of his default, the father was required to establish both a reasonable excuse and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Matter of Irvin R., 257 AD2d 624; Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631). Although the father demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his default, he clearly failed to make any showing that he has a meritorious defense. The conclusory assertions contained in his moving papers, without more, were insufficient to justify vacating the default (see Matter of Shirley C., supra). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion (see Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Deyquan M.B.
...excuse for her failure to appear and that she had a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Iris R., 295 A.D.2d 521, 522, 744 N.Y.S.2d 685 ; Matter of Angel Joseph S., 282 A.D.2d 752, 724 N.Y.S.2d 336 ). The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in deny......
-
Little Flower Children & Family Servs. of N.Y. v. S (In re Raphanello)
...was a reasonable excuse for their default and that they had a potentiallymeritorious defense ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Iris R., 295 A.D.2d 521, 744 N.Y.S.2d 685;Matter of Angel Joseph S., 282 A.D.2d 752, 724 N.Y.S.2d 336). The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denyi......
-
Kenneth S. v. Bethzaida P.
...for the default and a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Viergela A., 40 A.D.3d 630, 835 N.Y.S.2d 373; Matter of Iris R., 295 A.D.2d 521, 744 N.Y.S.2d 685; Matter of Angel Joseph S., 282 A.D.2d 752, 724 N.Y.S.2d 336). Here, the mother failed to meet either of these requirements......
-
Mongitore v. Linz
...Court did not err in denying the father's motion ( see Fekete v. Camp Skwere, 16 A.D.3d 544, 545, 792 N.Y.S.2d 127; Matter of Iris R., 295 A.D.2d 521, 522, 744 N.Y.S.2d 685; Matter of Shirley C., 145 A.D.2d 631, 632, 536 N.Y.S.2d 156).MASTRO, A.P.J., BALKIN, SGROI and COHEN, JJ., ...