Matter of Sagaria v. Sagaria
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Sagaria v Sagaria
2026 NY Slip Op 04509
July 22, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of John Sagaria, appellant,
v
Cynthia Sagaria, respondent.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2024-08725, (Docket Nos. V-5748-21/21A, V-5748-21/22C, V-5748-21/22D, V-2095-22/22A, V-2882-22/22A, V-3141-22/22A, O-288-22, O-3072-22)
Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P.
Barry E. Warhit
Laurence L. Love
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Meth Law Offices, P.C., Chester, NY (Michael D. Meth of counsel), for appellant.
Kelli M. O'Brien, Goshen, NY, attorney for the child.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Carol S. Klein, J.), dated August 30, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the father's motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated March 1, 2024, entered upon his default in appearing for a continued hearing and certain further proceedings.
ORDERED that the order dated August 30, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"A party seeking to vacate a default [pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1)] must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense" (Matter of Mondelus v Emile, 183 AD3d 743, 744 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Martin v Jackman, 247 AD3d 1038, 1039; Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d 926, 927). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the discretion of the Family Court (see Matter of Martin v Jackman, 247 AD3d at 1039; Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d at 927).
Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the father did not establish a reasonable excuse for his default. The father was present in court when the hearing was adjourned, and his vague and self-serving claim that due to stress and physical pain he did not write down the next court date did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his default (see Matter of Martin v Jackman, 247 AD3d at 1039; Matter of Abella v Szileszky, 177 AD3d 729, 730). The father's allegations of law office failure are similarly without merit as the father's email to his attorney seeking information on the next scheduled hearing date was sent post-default (see Ki Tae Kim v Bishop, 156 AD3d 776, 777). While the court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse where such claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation for the default (see Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d at 927), here, the father's claims were similarly vague (see Residential Mtge. Loan Trust v Battle, 207 AD3d 764, 766; Deep v City of New York, 183 AD3d 586, 587; Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d at 927).
In light of the father's failure to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, we need [*2]not address the issue of whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the plaintiff's motion and potentially meritorious claims with regard to his dismissed petitions (see Matter of Martin v Jackman, 247 AD3d at 1039; Residential Mtge. Loan Trust v Battle, 207 AD3d at 766-767; Ki Tae Kim v Bishop, 156 AD3d at 778).
The father's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the father's motion which was to vacate the order dated March 1, 2024.
CHAMBERS, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Sagaria v. Sagaria (Matter of Sagaria v. Sagaria) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.