DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeals from so much of the orders dated June 19, 1996, as terminated the father's parental rights, upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated June 19, 1996, are affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 16, 1996, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In these proceedings the Family Court held separate fact-finding and dispositional hearings. At both hearings the appellant failed to appear. At the fact-finding hearing his attorney participated in the proceedings. However, at the dispositional hearing the appellant's attorney, although present, did not participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, the appellant may appeal from those portions of the orders dated June 19, 1996, which, after the fact-finding hearing, determined that he had permanently neglected the subject children ( see, Matter of Geraldine Rose W. [Vanessa W.], 196 A.D.2d 313; Matter of Angel R. [Diane R.], 187 A.D.2d 433). However, since his attorney did not participate in the dispositional hearing those portions of the orders dated June 19, 1996, which terminated his parental rights and freed the children for adoption were entered upon his default and are not appealable ( see, Matter of Darryl P., 228 A.D.2d 176; Matter of Geraldine Rose W. [Vanessa W.], supra).
Upon review of the Family Court's fact-finding determinations we conclude that it properly found that the appellant's parental rights should be terminated. We also find that the Family Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing.
It is well settled that whether to relieve a party of an order entered on default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the court ( see, M.D. Son Contr. v. American Prop., 179 A.D.2d 519; Silveri v. Laufer, 179 A.D.2d 633). The party seeking to vacate a default must establish that there is a reasonable excuse for the default and that there exists a meritorious defense ( Matter of Little Flower Children's Servs. [Sean Courtney G.] v. Vernon J., 213 A.D.2d 548). In this case, the father failed to sustain his burden in this respect.
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.