Matter of Christina McK. v. Kyle S.

2017 NY Slip Op 7323, 154 A.D.3d 548, 62 N.Y.S.3d 261
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 19, 2017
Docket4739
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7323 (Matter of Christina McK. v. Kyle S.) 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
Matter of Christina McK. v. Kyle S., 2017 NY Slip Op 7323, 154 A.D.3d 548, 62 N.Y.S.3d 261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2016, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation entered upon his default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default (see Matter of Tyieyanna L. [Twanya McK.], 94 AD3d 494, 494-495 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403, 404 [1st Dept 1987]). Respondent’s claim that he did not appear at the December 11, 2015 hearing because he was under a mistaken belief as to the next hearing date was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse and belied by the transcript of the October 2, 2015 hearing, which showed he was present when the next hearing date was selected and told by his counsel that he was required to appear (see Matter of Brittany J., 235 AD2d 310, 311 [1st Dept 1997], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1086 [1997]; Bicknell v Bicknell, 214 AD2d 598, 598-599 [2d Dept 1995]). Respondent’s failure to maintain contact with his attorney and to keep himself apprised of the status of the hearing date demonstrated that his default was due to his overall lack of attention to the proceeding (see Sheikh v New York City Tr. Auth., 258 AD2d 347, 348 [1st Dept 1999]).

Because respondent failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not determine whether there existed a meritorious defense to the petition (see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 766 [2010]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.R, Maz-zarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Heidi A. v. Roger C.
2024 NY Slip Op 00854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Higgs v. Williams
2019 NY Slip Op 8956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 7323, 154 A.D.3d 548, 62 N.Y.S.3d 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-christina-mck-v-kyle-s-nyappdiv-2017.