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: Guardianship etc., MONIQUE TWANA C., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Thomas A., Respondent-Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children, Petitioner-Respondent.
Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about May 3, 1995, which, upon respondent's default, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner child-care agency for the purpose of adoption, following a fact-finding determination, made upon respondent's default, that he had abandoned the child, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable order. Order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 2, 1995, which denied respondent's motion to vacate his default at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
No appeal lies from the order of disposition since it was entered on default (CPLR 5511; see, Matter of Tyrone W., 223 A.D.2d 367, 636 N.Y.S.2d 310; Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 A.D.2d 313, 609 N.Y.S.2d 324, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 967, 621 N.Y.S.2d 514, 645 N.E.2d 1213). Moreover, we find that the Family Court's decision declining to vacate the default was proper where the evidence demonstrated that prior to the fact-finding hearing, respondent submitted an affidavit agreeing with the agency's position that the child's best interests were served by the proposed adoption by her great-aunt and foster mother and consenting to that adoption, and that at the intake hearing, at which respondent was present, his attorney informed the court that respondent, who was incarcerated, waived further appearances. Under these circumstances, the court properly declined to open the default based on respondent's unsupported and contradictory allegation, made for the first time months later, after the conclusion of both the fact-finding hearing and the dispositional hearing, that he had wanted to appear at the hearings. We note as well that respondent's conclusory allegation that he maintained “some” contact with the child is insufficient to show a meritorious defense. We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: January 13, 1998
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)