Opinion
2014-10-9
In re DELYBE C., and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Sonia S., Respondent–Appellant, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner–Respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the children.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J., pursuant to CPLR 9002, upon a decision by Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2013, which denied respondent mother/grandmother's motion to vacate an order of fact-finding entered upon her default, which determined that she had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Regardless of whether respondent failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her default, she failed to set forth a meritorious defense to the neglect petition ( seeCPLR 5015[a]; Matter of Samuel V.S. [Shamea L.], 89 A.D.3d 566, 567, 933 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1st Dept.2011] ). Petitioner agency demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the children's physical, mental or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of respondent's long-standing untreated mental illness (Family Ct. Act § 1012 [f][i][B] ). The record shows that respondent resisted treatment, despite attempting suicide a month before the filing of the neglect petition, and that she continued to have suicidal thoughts until her involuntary hospitalization ( see Matter of Naomi S. [Hadar S.], 87 A.D.3d 936, 937, 933 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 805, 939 N.Y.S.2d 750, 963 N.E.2d 127 [2012] ). Further, there was evidence that respondent repeatedly left her young grandson in the house without appropriate supervision, and was unable or unwilling to provide appropriate guardianship for her teenage daughter, who has now reached the age of majority. Respondent's contention that she was actively planning for the children's safety before she was admitted to the hospital is insufficient because it rests solely upon her counsel's affirmation ( see Matter of Samuel V.S., 89 A.D.3d at 567, 933 N.Y.S.2d 243).