Brosius v. Brosius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brosius v. Brosius

266 A.D.2d 174, 697 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11105

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 174 (Brosius v. Brosius) 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

Brosius v. Brosius, 266 A.D.2d 174, 697 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 1, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court, dated December 21, 1994, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing and following an inquest, inter alia, for arrears of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The defendant failed to satisfy that standard in this case. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 1, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court, dated December 21, 1994, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing and following an inquest, inter alia, for arrears of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The defendant failed to satisfy that standard in this case. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 174, 697 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brosius-v-brosius-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack