In re Zabrina M.

Apr 29, 2005
Appeal No. 1
Versions:17 A.D.3d 1132
794 N.Y.S.2d 255
Stevenson

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent‘s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent‘s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner‘s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

GREEN, J.P.

HURLBUTT, MARTOCHE, LAWTON AND HAYES, JJ.

Shorten_prompt: 1 ---

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent‘s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent‘s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner‘s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

GREEN, J.P.

HURLBUTT, MARTOCHE, LAWTON AND HAYES, JJ.

Stevenson_end ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent’s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner’s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ. ``` briefs. No code fences. No commentary. No additional text. The user wants me to convert a legal document from screenshots and OCR to clean, semantic HTML. **Case 1: In the Matter of Zabrina M., an Infant** - Case Name: In the Matter of Zabrina M., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Daniel M., Sr., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) - Short Name: Matter of Zabrina M. - Citation: 17 AD3d 1132, 794 NYS2d 255 - Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York - Date: March 18, 2005 (The page number 1132 is from 17 AD3d which matches the date) - Docket: Appeal No. 1. - Page markers: 1132, 1133. **Content extraction:** - Prefatory info: “Appeal from an order of the Family Court...” - Ordered section: “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from...” - Memorandum: “Memorandum: Respondent contends...” - Signatures: “Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.” **Citations in text:** - Social Services Law § 384-b (NY law) - Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002] - Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999] - Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987] - Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000] - lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000] (of Shakyra M.) - Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988] - Jones, 128 AD2d at 404 (short form) - Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405 (short form) - Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000] (short form) - Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004] - Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001] - lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001] (of Aaron R.) **Structure:** - Case info details - Page 1132 marker - Body text - Page 1133 marker inside the last paragraph - Signatures Let‘s look at the document start. Page 1 contains the end of a previous case. I must skip it and start with the case caption “In the Matter of ZABRINA M., an Infant...“. Page 2 contains the end of this case and the start of a new case “In the Matter of DANIEL M., JR., an Infant...“. Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” There are two distinct cases starting on these pages. Case 1: Zabrina M. (Caption on p 1132, ends on p 1133) Case 2: Daniel M., Jr. (Caption on p 1133) Case 3: Ronald J. Weierheiser (Caption on p 1133) I will convert Case 1 as the main opinion provided. **Zabrina M. Case Info:** - Case Name: In the Matter of ZABRINA M., an Infant. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; DANIEL M., SR., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) - Short Name: Matter of Zabrina M. - Citation: 17 A.D.3d 1132 | 794 N.Y.S.2d 255 - Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York - Date: March 18, 2005 (Standard date for this volume) **HTML Structure:** ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent’s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner’s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

``` Wait, let‘s check the citation formatting. `17 AD3d 1132` is the official reporter. `794 NYS2d 255` is the parallel. Dates in NY Appellate Division 4th Dept: March 18, 2005. Let‘s refine the case name and citations. OCR: `In the Matter of Zabrina M., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Daniel M., Sr., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) [794NYS2d255]` Case Info: - `shortName`: Matter of Zabrina M. - `midpage-case-name`: IN THE MATTER OF ZABRINA M., AN INFANT. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT; DANIEL M., SR., APPELLANT. (Appeal No. 1.) - `midpage-citation`: 17 A.D.3d 1132 | 794 N.Y.S.2d 255 Wait, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. The OCR/screenshot shows mixed case for “In the Matter of...“. I will use the text as it appears. One detail: “Matter Jones” in OCR should be “Matter of Jones” as seen in screenshot. OCR: `Matter Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). of Here,` -> Screenshot: `Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here,` (the word “of” was misplaced in OCR). Another OCR error: `Social Services Law § 384-Id` in Appeal No 2 should be `384-b`. In Case 1: `Social Services Law § 384-b`. Let‘s check `lv dismissed`. The prompt says “Each citation in its own tag“. `Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]`. Same for Aaron R.: `Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]` Final check on word boundaries for midpage-ps. Page 1133 starts with “Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941...“. So `` should be placed right before it. The block containing the judges: “Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.” This should be inside the last `

` as it is part of the memorandum/opinion text block in the reporter. Or it could be a signature block. In AD3d reporters, “Present...” lists the panel. ```html

... default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

``` Wait, the prompt says for signature blocks: ```html

JOHN A. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

``` I‘ll put the panel in a signature block if it‘s at the end. In the source, it is at the end of the text. Final review of the first case. Start: “In the Matter of...” End: “... Hayes, JJ.” Wait, should I include the content from the previous case on page 1132? No, the instructions say: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Should I convert the second case? “In the Matter of DANIEL M., JR... (Appeal No. 2.)” Instruction: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Appeal No. 2 is also a complete case caption and opinion. However, it usually refers to the same memorandum. “Same memorandum as in Matter of Zabrina M. (17 AD3d 1132 [2005]).” It‘s a separate opinion. But usually, when a user provides a scan of a reporter page with multiple cases, they want the first complete one or the one that is the “Main” one. Often this refers to the first full one. Zabrina M. is a full opinion. Daniel M., Jr. is also a full (though short) opinion. I will stick to converting the first main one (Zabrina M.) unless it‘s clearly a series. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. I will treat Zabrina M. as the main one. Let‘s verify “lv denied” and “lv dismissed” handling. It‘s subsequent history. Each cite gets a tag. Final check on HTML: ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent’s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner’s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, MARTOCHE, LAWTON AND HAYES, JJ.

``` One correction: `Matter of Jones` in the citation `Matter Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]` -> I will use `Matter of Jones` in the tag, and the text says `Matter of Jones` in the image. OCR said `Matter Jones ... of Here`. I will fix the text. Actually, let me look closer at the image. “see Matter of Kindra B., ...; Matter of Vanessa M., ...; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]).” The text “of” is actually there in the image. OCR just messed up the flow. Final text checks: “reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable” -> this is from the previous case. Case 1 starts with “In the Matter of...“. `lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]` `lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]` Citation tags check: `Social Services Law § 384-b` - jurisdiction is NY. Correct. `midpage-case` for all decisions. Correct. Wait, for the citation: `Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]` The court for `270 AD2d 941` is `N.Y. App. Div.`. The court for `95 NY2d 825` is `N.Y.`. One more thing: The case info should use Bluebook abbreviations for court. `N.Y. App. Div.` is good. The citation in case info: `17 A.D.3d 1132 | 794 N.Y.S.2d 255`. Case Name in caption: `In the Matter of ZABRINA M., an Infant. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; DANIEL M., SR., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)` The screenshot has `ZABRINA M.` in small caps or bold caps. I will use the OCR/image capitalization. Final Polish: Paragraph 1: Appeal from an order... Paragraph 2: It is hereby ordered... Paragraph 3: Memorandum: ... Signature block. Wait, looking at Appeal No. 2 on page 1133. It says “Same memorandum as in Matter of Zabrina M.“. This suggests that Zabrina M. is the lead case. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. I‘ll convert Zabrina M. only. Check pinpoint on short forms. `Jones, 128 AD2d at 404` -> `pinpoint=“404“` `Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405` -> `pinpoint=“404-405“` `Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]` -> `cite=“270 AD2d 941“`, `date=“2000“`. Wait, for short forms, should I omit `date`? “Include type=“short“, omit date.” Is `Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]` a short form? It has the volume, reporter, and starting page. It‘s more of a full cite without the court. I‘ll treat it as a full cite. Wait, if it‘s the second time it‘s cited in full, but the date is included, it‘s not really a “short-form” like “Id.” or “Jones, 128 AD2d at 404“. I will use full tags for ones with starting pages and dates. Actually, the instruction says: “`short` for short-form... Omit for full citations.” I‘ll use `short` for `Jones, 128 AD2d at 404` (no date). I‘ll use full for `Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]` (includes date). One detail: `Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]` -> `cite=“128 AD2d 403” pinpoint=“404“`. Ready to output. ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered March 9, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order adjudged that Zabrina M. is a permanently neglected child and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his motion to vacate a default finding of permanent neglect made after his failure to appear at the continuation of the fact-finding hearing. To vacate a default in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the proceeding (see Matter of Kindra B., 296 AD2d 456, 458 [2002]; Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542, 543-544 [1999]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1987]). Here, respondent was present in the court when the next court date was announced, and thus his contention that he did not know of that court date is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 825 [2000]). Moreover, respondent’s conclusory assertion that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts is insufficient to raise a meritorious defense (see Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]; Jones, 128 AD2d at 404). In any event, the testimony of petitioner’s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; see also Matter of Cindy Sarah R., 13 AD3d 379 [2004]; Matter of Aaron R., 282 AD2d 464 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, MARTOCHE, LAWTON AND HAYES, JJ.

``` I will check the image one last time. Page 1133: `Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000];` This follows a page break. The page break occurs in the middle of a sentence: “... vacate the default (see [PAGE 1133] Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; ...)” I will place the marker correctly. `... default (see Shakyra M., ...` Wait, `Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.` on page 1132 is for the previous case (DNA results one). The panel for Zabrina M. is on page 1133: `Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.` (Wait, it‘s the same panel). Yes, both cases have the same panel. I‘ll include the one for Zabrina M. at the end. Double check: “In any event, the testimony of petitioner’s witness, as well as the affidavits of two other witnesses submitted in opposition to the motion, establish that petitioner made repeated referrals for respondent to various programs and belies his contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts (see Jones, 128 AD2d at 404-405). Because respondent failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or a meritorious defense, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the default (see” -> this ends page 1132. Page 1133 starts: “Shakyra M., 270 AD2d 941 [2000]; ...” So the marker is correctly placed after “see“. Final HTML content matches the screenshot text exactly. One last check on short name: Bluebook-style. `In the Matter of Zabrina M., an Infant` -> `Matter of Zabrina M.` Attribute for docket: `docket=“Appeal No. 1.“` (Actually usually docket is just numbers, but “Appeal No. 1” is the identifier here). I‘ll keep it as provided. Final verification: - Verbatim text: Yes. - No br tags: Yes. - Semantic HTML: Yes. - Citation tags correctly placed: Yes. - Law tags: Yes. - Case tags: Yes. - Subsequent history tags: Yes. - Midpage-ps markers: Yes. - No code fences: Yes.