Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: GREGORY T., Jr., etc., et al., Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Gregory T., Sr., Respondent–Appellant, Little Flower Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2000, denying appellant notice-father's motion to vacate two prior orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 17, 2000, which, in proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, upon appellant's default at the dispositional hearing, transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Vacatur was properly denied since appellant notice-father (see, Social Services Law § 384–c[3]; Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ) failed to meet his burden as movant to demonstrate merit to his opposition to the dispositions sought by petitioner agency and directed by the court in its July 17, 2000 orders (Matter of Derrick T., 261 A.D.2d 108, 687 N.Y.S.2d 260; Matter of James Edward M., 250 A.D.2d 685, 672 N.Y.S.2d 758, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 920, 680 N.Y.S.2d 460, 703 N.E.2d 272). Although appellant, who is presently incarcerated, proposed his sister as an alternative to placing the subject children in foster care, his sister did not contact the court or the agency and has had no relationship with the children. Nor do appellant's vague assertions as to his loving and caring feelings for the children demonstrate, even to the extent necessary to support a motion for vacatur, that the children's best interests would be served by a dispositional plan other than that ordered by Family Court.
We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 27, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)