Respondent's motion to vacate fact-finding and dispositional orders entered upon her default was properly denied in light of respondent's failure to meet her burden upon the motion of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 A.D.2d 313, lv dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 967; Matter of "Male" Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403). Respondent's various explanations for her absence from the proceedings were unsubstantiated and, as such, properly rejected by the court (see, e.g., Matter of Danielle R., 239 A.D.2d 305). Similarly, although respondent asserted that she possessed a meritorious defense, she failed to offer evidence to support that claim (see, Matter of "Male." Jones, supra). Respondent's additional argument that Family Court violated her due process rights by proceeding in her absence is not preserved for our review, respondent not having sought vacatur upon that ground. In any event, it does not appear that Family Court erred in this case when it elected to go forward with the permanent neglect proceeding in respondent's absence (see, Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 A.D.2d, supra, at 316-317; Matter of James Carton K., 245 A.D.2d 374, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 809).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.