IN RE: JAYNICES D. (2009)

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

IN RE: JAYNICES D., and Others, Children Under The Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Yesenia Del V., Respondent-Appellant, McMahon Services for Children, etc., Petitioner-Respondent. In re Jose M., and Others, Children Under The Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Yesenia Del V., Respondent-Appellant, McMahon Services for Children, etc., Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided: November 17, 2009

GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, McGUIRE, ACOSTA, ROMAN, JJ.

Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant. Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), Law Guardian.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2008, which denied respondent's motion to vacate orders of disposition entered on or about January 17, 2008, terminating her parental rights to Jose, Christine, Cynthia and Yesenia, and transferring guardianship and custody of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 23, 2008 and on or about July 29, 2008, which terminated respondent's parental rights to Myra and Shakira and to Jaynices, respectively, and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her absence from the dispositional hearing that resulted in the termination of her parental rights to Jose, Christine, Cynthia and Yesenia and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403, 512 N.Y.S.2d 689 [1987] ). Her proffered excuse-that she was confused about the time of the hearing-was not reasonable, particularly in light of her history of failing to appear at scheduled proceedings. The defense that respondent stated she intended to offer was the very defense that had been rejected at the fully contested dispositional hearing regarding Myra, Shakira and Jaynices.

Family Court properly denied respondent's request for an adjournment of the dispositional hearing that resulted in the termination of her parental rights to Myra, Shakira and Jaynices, since respondent's need for an adjournment arose from her own conduct (see Matter of Steven B., 24 A.D.3d 384, 385, 807 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2005], affd. 6 N.Y.3d 888, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646 [2006] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network