In re John R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re John R.

49 A.D.3d 544, 851 N.Y.2d 891

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 4, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[545]*545The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the appellant, a “person legally responsible for the child’s care” (Family Ct Act § 1042), to vacate the fact-finding order entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, as the record showed that he “willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (id.; see Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830 [2007]; Matter of W. Children, 256 AD2d 412, 413 [1998]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Margaret D., 221 AD2d 439 [1995]). Moreover, the appellant failed to set forth a meritorious defense to the allegations in the petition (see Family Ct Act § 1042). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

[545]*545The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the appellant, a “person legally responsible for the child’s care” (Family Ct Act § 1042), to vacate the fact-finding order entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, as the record showed that he “willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (id.; see Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830 [2007]; Matter of W. Children, 256 AD2d 412, 413 [1998]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Margaret D., 221 AD2d 439 [1995]). Moreover, the appellant failed to set forth a meritorious defense to the allegations in the petition (see Family Ct Act § 1042). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

In re John R., 49 A.D.3d 544, 851 N.Y.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 544 (In re John R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related