This is what amused me about the "Doctor Who" episode "The Impossible Planet", all about a planetoid that was orbiting a black hole whilst loads of other material was passing by and getting gobbled up. Why shouldn't it be orbiting? "Impossible" in the sense of "perfectly possible and indeed likely that something could orbit a mass in space".
It shouldn't have survived the supernova.
If it wasn't vaporized initially in the flash, it was pushed out of orbit by the gas-shell in the detonation, where it is likely to be above stable orbital velocity.
Further still, the supernova (before collapse) sheds a LOT of mass - and thus reduces the stable orbit speed.
So, it's been pushed out, and is now orbiting a smaller mass, and is likely to be at escape velocity.
And then the accretion begins... as matter
and energy† fall into it, it gains mass, needed orbital velocity increases, and anything in a stable orbit begins to fall inward due to insufficient orbital speed. As it falls in, the difference between its orbital speed and its needed stable orbital speed widens... and so it falls in faster and faster.
Plus, anything that happens to be falling in has both gravitational drag and potential to impact.
So, really, the planet orbiting would be most unlikely to be falling in at the right angle of incidence and the right velocity to become stable, and even if it does, it won't remain stable as more falls into the black hole.
†Remember: Energy has a functional mass, and unlike a normal body, the energy cannot escape the black hole.