In re Benjamin M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Benjamin M.

212 A.D.2d 616, 622 N.Y.S.2d 334

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 616 (In re Benjamin M.) 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

In re Benjamin M., 212 A.D.2d 616, 622 N.Y.S.2d 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to abrogate the adoption of the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s [617]*617Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated July 9, 1993, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the dismissal of the proceeding and restore it to the calendar.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied his motion and declined to revive a proceeding which has essentially lain dormant since 1981. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and that his claim has legal merit (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Siegel, NY Prac § 427, at 651 [2d ed]). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to abrogate the adoption of the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s [617]*617Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated July 9, 1993, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the dismissal of the proceeding and restore it to the calendar.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied his motion and declined to revive a proceeding which has essentially lain dormant since 1981. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and that his claim has legal merit (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Siegel, NY Prac § 427, at 651 [2d ed]). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 616, 622 N.Y.S.2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-benjamin-m-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack