Nasser ex rel. Williams v. Abraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nasser ex rel. Williams v. Abraham

105 A.D.2d 1096, 482 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21184

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1096 (Nasser ex rel. Williams v. Abraham) 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

Nasser ex rel. Williams v. Abraham, 105 A.D.2d 1096, 482 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition reinstated. Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing two support petitions on the ground of respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing (see, generally, Family Ct Act, § 441; Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A; Family Ct Act, § 441). Instead of rewarding respondent for his nonappearance by. dismissing the proceedings, Family Court could have granted an adjournment as requested by petitioner, issued a warrant (Family Ct Act, §§153, 428) or, if appropriate, found respondent to be in default and proceeded with an inquest (CPLR 3215, subd [a]; see Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A; Family Ct Act, § 428; cf. O’Toole v O’Toole, 88 AD2d 1011). (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court, Pomilio, J. — dismiss petition.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition reinstated. Memorandum: Family Court erred in dismissing two support petitions on the ground of respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing (see, generally, Family Ct Act, § 441; Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A; Family Ct Act, § 441). Instead of rewarding respondent for his nonappearance by. dismissing the proceedings, Family Court could have granted an adjournment as requested by petitioner, issued a warrant (Family Ct Act, §§153, 428) or, if appropriate, found respondent to be in default and proceeded with an inquest (CPLR 3215, subd [a]; see Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A; Family Ct Act, § 428; cf. O’Toole v O’Toole, 88 AD2d 1011). (Appeal from order of Oneida County Family Court, Pomilio, J. — dismiss petition.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1096, 482 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nasser-ex-rel-williams-v-abraham-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack