Matter of Maudi A.B. v. Angelo P.N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Maudi A.B. v. Angelo P.N.

2019 NY Slip Op 549

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2019

Docket8215

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 549 (Matter of Maudi A.B. v. Angelo P.N.) 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 Maudi A.B. v. Angelo P.N., 2019 NY Slip Op 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Matter of Maudi A.B. v Angelo P.N. (2019 NY Slip Op 00549)

Matter of Maudi A.B. v Angelo P.N.

2019 NY Slip Op 00549

Decided on January 29, 2019

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 29, 2019
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.

8215

[*1]In re Maudi A.B., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Angelo P.N., Respondent-Appellant.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel) for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.

Kenneth M. Tucillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2017, which denied respondent Angelo P.N.'s motion to vacate Orders of Filiation by Default, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 13, 2016, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant's motion to vacate was properly denied given his failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a]).

The mother's affidavits of alleged paternity, sworn to on penalty of perjury, provided sufficient support for a finding of paternity by estoppel (Matter of South Carolina Dept. of Social Servs. v Starks , 206 AD2d 312 [1st Dept 1994]). Appellant's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions are not sufficient to rebut the mother's statements and to demonstrate a meritorious defense (see Matter of Derrick T. , 261 AD2d 108 [1st Dept 1999]; Matter of Jones , 128 AD2d 403 [1st Dept 1987]).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 29, 2019

DEPUTY CLERK

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