IN RE: PRINCE CC. and Others (2009)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Maney, J.), entered September 30, 2008, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, denied respondent's motion to vacate a default order entered against him terminating his parental rights.

In 2005, petitioner removed respondent's three children from the custody of their mother, who later surrendered her parental rights.   In 2006, based upon respondent's lack of contact with the children, their service providers and petitioner for more than six months, petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminate his parental rights (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4][b] ).  A fact-finding hearing was held and, based on respondent's admissions, Family Court found that he had abandoned the children and scheduled a dispositional hearing.   After respondent failed to appear at that hearing and neither the court nor his counsel had heard from him, Family Court issued an order of disposition which terminated his parental rights, continued the children in foster care and freed them for adoption.   Nine months later, respondent moved to vacate that order.   Family Court denied his motion, prompting this appeal.

We affirm.   To vacate his default, respondent was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the dispositional hearing and a meritorious defense to termination of his parental rights (see Matter of Womack v. Rosario, 50 A.D.3d 1212, 1213, 855 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2008];  Matter of Taylor v. Staples, 33 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 822 N.Y.S.2d 649 [2006], lv. dismissed and denied 8 N.Y.3d 830, 828 N.Y.S.2d 290, 861 N.E.2d 106 [2007];  Matter of Shaune TT., 251 A.D.2d 758, 758, 674 N.Y.S.2d 457 [1998] ).   His affidavit in support of the motion, however, contains only unsubstantiated claims that his employer prevented him from attending the hearing and that he has taken steps to gain custody of his children by obtaining full-time employment and completing treatment for his substance abuse problem.   Notably, respondent did not deny having been informed of the hearing date or offer any excuse for his failure to contact the court, his counsel, the Law Guardian or petitioner.   Nor does he explain why he waited nine months to seek to vacate his default.   Finally, given respondent's extended abandonment of the children, his allegations of recent rehabilitative efforts do not constitute a meritorious defense to the termination of his parental rights (see Matter of Gloria Marie S., 55 A.D.3d 320, 321, 865 N.Y.S.2d 68 [2008], lv. dismissed 11 N.Y.3d 909, 873 N.Y.S.2d 523, 901 N.E.2d 1275 [2009];  Matter of Adam S., 287 A.D.2d 723, 724, 732 N.Y.S.2d 418 [2001];  Matter of Raymond Anthony A., 192 A.D.2d 529, 529, 596 N.Y.S.2d 723 [1993], lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 706, 601 N.Y.S.2d 585, 619 N.E.2d 663 [1993] ).   Accordingly, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's motion.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ROSE, J.

SPAIN, J.P., LAHTINEN, MALONE JR. and KAVANAGH, JJ., concur.