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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

225 A.D.2d 658 (Fayet v. Fayet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Booska v. Booska
246 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)