Matter of Laura Mariela R.
(Alicia R.)
2003 NYSlipOp 11396
Decided on February 25, 2003
Appellate Division, First
Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to
revision before publication in the Official Reports.
[*1]In re Laura Mariela R., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Alicia R., Respondent-Appellant, Pius XII Youth and Family Services,
Petitioner-Respondent.
Diane Pazar
George E. Reed, Jr.
Michael A. Neff
Order, Family
Court, Bronx County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about October 16,
2000, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate a dispositional order
of the same court and Judge, entered on or about September 13, 2000, which,
upon respondent's default in appearing at the underlying fact-finding and
dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights to the subject child on
grounds of permanent neglect and committed custody and guardianship of the
child to the petitioning agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the
City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without
costs.
While Family
Court should have explained its reasons for denying respondent's motion to
vacate the dispositional order, (Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp., 286 AD2d
130), the motion was nevertheless properly denied since she failed to
demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her defaults in appearing at the
fact-finding and dispositional hearings. Although respondent averred that she
had been participating in an in-patient drug rehabilitation program at the time
of the hearings, she did not explain why she had been unable to notify her
attorney or the court of her unavailability for a hearing date she knew about
two months earlier (see Matter of Ashley Marie M., 287 AD2d 333).
Respondent, in support of her motion for vacatur, also failed to make the
requisite showing that she possessed a meritorious defense. Her affidavit
provided no indication that, contrary to the allegations of the permanent
neglect petition, she had in fact planned for the child's future (see Matter
of Willie James Scott R., 265 AD2d 163). Respondent's attorney's conclusory
affirmation in opposition to the petition was unavailing since [*2]she lacked personal knowledge of the facts.
Finally,
respondent's argument as to the adequacy of her representation is unpreserved
and we do not reach it (see Matter of Tamara Liz H., __ AD2d __,
2002 NY App Div LEXIS 12812). In any event, our review of the existing record
reveals that counsel was not ineffective (see id.; see also
Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 AD2d 313, lv dismissed 84
NY2d 967).
THIS
CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
CLERK