Armstrong v. Doby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armstrong v. Doby

69 A.D.3d 933, 892 N.Y.2d 794

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 933 (Armstrong v. Doby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Doby, 69 A.D.3d 933, 892 N.Y.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[934]*934“While disposition of matters on their merits, especially with regard to filiation and support, is preferred, the court retains the discretion to deny a motion to vacate a default where it is not supported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense” (Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thé father’s objections to the order denying that branch of his motion which was to vacate the order of support entered upon his default, since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 32 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2006]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450 [2006]; Matter of Jazel Dominique D., 209 AD2d 410, 411 [1994]; Matter of Nathalie A., 145 AD2d 629, 630 [1988]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[934]*934“While disposition of matters on their merits, especially with regard to filiation and support, is preferred, the court retains the discretion to deny a motion to vacate a default where it is not supported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense” (Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thé father’s objections to the order denying that branch of his motion which was to vacate the order of support entered upon his default, since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 32 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2006]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450 [2006]; Matter of Jazel Dominique D., 209 AD2d 410, 411 [1994]; Matter of Nathalie A., 145 AD2d 629, 630 [1988]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 933, 892 N.Y.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-doby-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack