IN RE ZULEYKA

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2008-08764.

Attorney(S)

Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant Dexter D. Leighton M. Jackson, New York, N.Y., for appellant Maria D. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for respondent Jewish Child Care Association of New York. Eli Yeger, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children, Zuleyka D., Jaleya Ann D., and Mauree D., a/k/a Nyree D. (no brief filed). Warren L. Millman, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children Derrick D. and Dexter Anthony D., Jr.

Judges

Peter B. Skelos
Ruth C. Balkin
John M. Leventhal
Plummer E. Lott

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

In the Matter of ZULEYKA D., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; DEXTER D. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of JALEYA ANN D., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; DEXTER D. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of DERRICK D., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; DEXTER D. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of MAUREE D., Also Known as NYREE D., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; DEXTER D. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of DEXTER ANTHONY D., JR., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; DEXTER D. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 5.).

Ordered that the order dated September 8, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with assigned counsel for the mother that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted ( see Anders v California, 386 US 738; Matter of Robert David L., 16 AD3d 508).

To vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition, the father was required to show that there was a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense ( see Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d 502). The father did not make the requisite showing ( see Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d 744).

The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Comments