Bendeck v. Zablah

105 A.D.3d 457, 963 N.Y.S.2d 81
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 105 A.D.3d 457 (Bendeck v. Zablah) 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
Bendeck v. Zablah, 105 A.D.3d 457, 963 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2011, denying respondent’s objection to an order of the Support Magistrate, dated May 4, 2011, which denied respondent’s motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate prior default orders awarding child support and counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court correctly upheld the Support Magistrate’s denial of the father’s motion to vacate his defaults. A party seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 863 [2010]). Respondent father’s reasons for nonappearance were unpersuasive. His claim that he was unable to obtain a visa for entry into the United States was belied by travel documents establishing that he entered the United States three days prior to the hearing. Although he was not held in default for his failure to make that appearance, the Support Magistrate found that his reason for failing to appear one month later at the adjourned hearing was also not reasonable. While the father asserted that the mail system in Honduras was disrupted by a military coup, the affidavit from a postal administrator in the town in which he lived in Honduras did not support his claim.

Since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his defaults, we need not reach the issue of whether he presented a potentially meritorious defense (see Coba v Rai, 63 AD3d 578, 582 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, AbdusSalaam and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

Eldad Prime, LLC v. Aryeh
2025 NY Slip Op 30142(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
1032-1034 Lexington Ave., Ltd. v. Rogers
2021 NY Slip Op 02973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Alliance for Progress, Inc. v. Blondell Realty Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Carmit D. v. Gil D.
2019 NY Slip Op 8790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Natalya M. v. Chanan M.
2019 NY Slip Op 2284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.3d 457, 963 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bendeck-v-zablah-nyappdiv-2013.