DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The orders of fact-finding and disposition were entered upon the mother's alleged default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings. However, the order dated August 8, 2002, is brought up for review on the appeals from the orders of fact-finding and disposition (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). Appellate review is not precluded because the mother may obtain review of "matters which were the subject of contest below" ( James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n 3; see Matter of Kindra B., 296 A.D.2d 456, 457).
Contrary to the mother's contention, CPLR 5015(a) is the proper statute under which her motion to vacate the orders of fact-finding and disposition must be reviewed ( see Matter of Raymond Anthony A. Jr., 192 A.D.2d 529, 530). A party seeking to vacate an order of the Family Court entered upon his or her default must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( see Matter of Glenna Arianna Patricia J-P, 303 A.D.2d 588; Matter of Tiffany L., 294 A.D.2d 365, 366). The mother failed to demonstrate either of these requirements. Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate her defaults ( see Matter of Glenna Arianna Patricia J-P, supra at 588-589; Matter of Raymond Anthony A., supra).
PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.