Mongitore v. Linz

95 A.D.3d 1130, 943 N.Y.S.2d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1130 (Mongitore v. Linz) 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
Mongitore v. Linz, 95 A.D.3d 1130, 943 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated January 14, 2011, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated August 17, 2010, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing.

Ordered that the order dated January 14, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered on default must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter [1131]*1131of Gustave-Francois v Francois, 88 AD3d 881 [2011]; Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539 [2006]; Matter of Vanessa F., 9 AD3d 464 [2004]). Here, the father had failed to appear for a hearing on the mother’s family offense petition. In moving to vacate the resulting order of protection entered on his default, the father provided a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear, but no potentially meritorious defense to the petition. His conclusory assertion that he had a meritorious defense was insufficient (see Matter of Atkin v Atkin, 55 AD3d 905 [2008]). The father’s remaining contention with respect to the Family Court’s denial of his motion is without merit. Consequently, the Family Court did not err in denying the father’s motion (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; Matter of Iris R., 295 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; Matter of Shirley C., 145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]). Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Hines v. Baptiste
2019 NY Slip Op 8847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Ignatieva v. Sullivan
2019 NY Slip Op 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Stephanie F. v. Leon H.
2018 NY Slip Op 6531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Lando v. Lando
2018 NY Slip Op 2622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Thompson-Richmond v. Perez
2018 NY Slip Op 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Kimberly S.K. (Kimberly K.)
2017 NY Slip Op 3749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Williams v. Williams
2017 NY Slip Op 1873 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Serwatka v. Serwatka
2017 NY Slip Op 1367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Gastaldi v. Gastaldi
125 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Idieru v. Jeanpierre
122 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Nunez v. Lopez
103 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cummings v. Rosoff
101 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 1130, 943 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mongitore-v-linz-nyappdiv-2012.