Mejia v. Mejia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mejia v. Mejia

82 A.D.2d 875, 440 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14571

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

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 875 (Mejia v. Mejia) 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

Mejia v. Mejia, 82 A.D.2d 875, 440 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which plaintiff had been granted a judgment of divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lemer, J.), entered July 21, 1980, which, after a hearing, inter alia, vacated the judgment of divorce and set the matter down for trial. Order affirmed, with costs. On the record, it is clear that defendant’s consent to the settlement and her agreement to withdraw her defenses were equivocal and not based upon an informed understanding of the consequences. In view of the liberal policy regarding vacatur of default judgments in matrimonial actions (Rizzo v Rizzo, 50 AD2d 915) and the court’s inherent power, not limited by statute, to relieve a party from a judgment or order entered upon default for sufficient reason and in the interest of justice, the relief granted was not an abuse of discretion (see Government Employees Ins. Co. v Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co., 62 AD2d 123). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which plaintiff had been granted a judgment of divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lemer, J.), entered July 21, 1980, which, after a hearing, inter alia, vacated the judgment of divorce and set the matter down for trial. Order affirmed, with costs. On the record, it is clear that defendant’s consent to the settlement and her agreement to withdraw her defenses were equivocal and not based upon an informed understanding of the consequences. In view of the liberal policy regarding vacatur of default judgments in matrimonial actions (Rizzo v Rizzo, 50 AD2d 915) and the court’s inherent power, not limited by statute, to relieve a party from a judgment or order entered upon default for sufficient reason and in the interest of justice, the relief granted was not an abuse of discretion (see Government Employees Ins. Co. v Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co., 62 AD2d 123). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 875, 440 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-mejia-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack