Marrocco v. Marrocco

90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19275
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 A.D.2d 989 (Marrocco v. Marrocco) 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
Marrocco v. Marrocco, 90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was served with an order directing him to appear at Matrimonial Special Term on January 29, 1981 to show cause why [990]*990he should not be punished for contempt for failure to pay support in accordance with a judgment of divorce and why judgment should not be entered against him for arrearages in child support payments in the amount of $17,600. On the day prior to the return date, he consulted an attorney. He appeared with counsel and presented an affidavit and cross motion to the court. The court ruled defendant to be in default since he had not filed answering papers on the Friday preceding the return date pursuant to prevailing practice in Monroe County Matrimonial Special Term. Rather than making a motion to open the default, defendant appeals. While no appeal lies from an order entered upon default, the proper remedy being an application to the rendering court to open the default (CPLR 5511, 5015; Morse v Morse, 67 AD2d 750; Furci v Furci, 45 AD2d 1003), we do not view this determination to have been made upon defendant’s default. In addition to an appearance with his attorney, defendant submitted a responding affidavit and cross motion. Granting judgment in the amount of $17,600 without affording defendant an opportunity for an adjournment or to be heard on the motion is an improvident exercise of Special Term’s discretion (Matter of Black v Black, 84 AD2d 922). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J. — arrearages, child support, etc.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Jann v. Cassidy
265 A.D.2d 873 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Robert Marini Builder, Inc. v. Rao
263 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Achampong v. Weigelt
240 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Spatz v. Bajramoski
214 A.D.2d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Interboro Management Co. v. State Division of Human Rights
139 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Levy v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
115 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrocco-v-marrocco-nyappdiv-1982.