Arvanetes v. Arvanetes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arvanetes v. Arvanetes

191 A.D.2d 893, 595 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2253

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 893 (Arvanetes v. Arvanetes) 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

Arvanetes v. Arvanetes, 191 A.D.2d 893, 595 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered October 16, 1991 in Dutchess County, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him.

It is true that courts have adopted a more liberal attitude in vacating default judgments in matrimonial actions (see, e.g., Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 AD2d 460; O’Brien v O’Brien, 149 AD2d 830). Nevertheless, the party seeking vacatur must still show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Schrader v Schrader, 152 AD2d 987). In our view, defendant offered no reasonable excuse for his default in this action. The record reveals that upon being served with the motion, defendant consulted two attorneys prior to the motion’s return date. Plaintiff’s attorney informed both attorneys that plaintiff would not accept defendant’s settlement offer. At no time did defense counsel make any applications or submit any opposition to plaintiff’s motion. There is no evidence to support defendant’s claims of fraud or deception (see, Lins v Lins, 98 AD2d 608). Defendant also failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. We would also note that, under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason to vacate the financial provisions of the default judgment (see, Walczak v Walczak, 177 AD2d 1045; Ryan v Ryan, 177 AD2d 895). Accordingly, the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate should be affirmed.

[894]*894Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered October 16, 1991 in Dutchess County, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him.

It is true that courts have adopted a more liberal attitude in vacating default judgments in matrimonial actions (see, e.g., Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 AD2d 460; O’Brien v O’Brien, 149 AD2d 830). Nevertheless, the party seeking vacatur must still show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Schrader v Schrader, 152 AD2d 987). In our view, defendant offered no reasonable excuse for his default in this action. The record reveals that upon being served with the motion, defendant consulted two attorneys prior to the motion’s return date. Plaintiff’s attorney informed both attorneys that plaintiff would not accept defendant’s settlement offer. At no time did defense counsel make any applications or submit any opposition to plaintiff’s motion. There is no evidence to support defendant’s claims of fraud or deception (see, Lins v Lins, 98 AD2d 608). Defendant also failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. We would also note that, under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason to vacate the financial provisions of the default judgment (see, Walczak v Walczak, 177 AD2d 1045; Ryan v Ryan, 177 AD2d 895). Accordingly, the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate should be affirmed.

[894]*894Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 893, 595 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arvanetes-v-arvanetes-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack