Fayet v. Fayet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fayet v. Fayet

225 A.D.2d 658, 639 N.Y.2d 929, 639 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2639

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 658 (Fayet v. Fayet) 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

Fayet v. Fayet, 225 A.D.2d 658, 639 N.Y.2d 929, 639 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Although as a general rule in matrimonial cases, the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating defaults, it is still incumbent upon the moving party to show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Sayagh v Sayagh, 205 AD2d 678; Kellerman v Kellerman, 203 AD2d 533, 534). The trial court properly determined that the wife had failed to either establish a reasonable excuse for her default or show the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the wife’s motion.

The wife’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Although as a general rule in matrimonial cases, the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating defaults, it is still incumbent upon the moving party to show a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Sayagh v Sayagh, 205 AD2d 678; Kellerman v Kellerman, 203 AD2d 533, 534). The trial court properly determined that the wife had failed to either establish a reasonable excuse for her default or show the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the wife’s motion.

The wife’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 658, 639 N.Y.2d 929, 639 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fayet-v-fayet-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack