Delaoz v. Delaoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delaoz v. Delaoz

268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 207 (Delaoz v. Delaoz) 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

Delaoz v. Delaoz, 268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1997, which, in a support proceeding under Family Court Act article 4, denied respondent’s objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order denying his motion to vacate an order made upon his failure to appear at a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record, which shows that the hearing was adjourned to July 9, 1997 rather than July 10, 1997 in accordance with respondent’s expressed preference, amply justifies Family Court’s rejection of respondent’s claim that he failed to appear on July 9 because he mistakenly believed the hearing had been scheduled for July 10 on the ground that he was not credible. We would also note respondent’s well-established penchant for missing court dates (see, Haas v Haas, 84 AD2d 702), as well as his failure to submit an affidavit of merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1997, which, in a support proceeding under Family Court Act article 4, denied respondent’s objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order denying his motion to vacate an order made upon his failure to appear at a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record, which shows that the hearing was adjourned to July 9, 1997 rather than July 10, 1997 in accordance with respondent’s expressed preference, amply justifies Family Court’s rejection of respondent’s claim that he failed to appear on July 9 because he mistakenly believed the hearing had been scheduled for July 10 on the ground that he was not credible. We would also note respondent’s well-established penchant for missing court dates (see, Haas v Haas, 84 AD2d 702), as well as his failure to submit an affidavit of merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 679, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaoz-v-delaoz-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack