Bernal v. Bernal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernal v. Bernal

45 A.D.3d 589, 844 N.Y.S.2d 717

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 2007·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jorge Bernal appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Módica, J.), dated March 6, 2007, which denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated August 4, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to stay away from the petitioner and her home.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection issued against him. The appellant [590]*590failed to show good cause to vacate the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 844; Matter of Marks v Marks, 24 AD2d 1017 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 787 [1966]). To the extent the appellant sought vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), he failed to provide any additional evidence which could not have been discovered previously or would have changed the result (see Matter of Mohammad v Mohammad, 299 AD2d 363 [2002]; Matter of Jenna R., 207 AD2d 403 [1994]; Matter of Amina W. v Curven W., 12 Misc 3d 1197 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51600[U] [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Jorge Bernal appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Módica, J.), dated March 6, 2007, which denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated August 4, 2006, which, after a hearing, inter alia, directed him to stay away from the petitioner and her home.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection issued against him. The appellant [590]*590failed to show good cause to vacate the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 844; Matter of Marks v Marks, 24 AD2d 1017 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 787 [1966]). To the extent the appellant sought vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), he failed to provide any additional evidence which could not have been discovered previously or would have changed the result (see Matter of Mohammad v Mohammad, 299 AD2d 363 [2002]; Matter of Jenna R., 207 AD2d 403 [1994]; Matter of Amina W. v Curven W., 12 Misc 3d 1197 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51600[U] [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Bernal v. Bernal, 45 A.D.3d 589, 844 N.Y.S.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

45 A.D.3d 589 (Bernal v. Bernal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related