Nelson v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nelson v. Hernandez

100 A.D.3d 761, 953 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 761 (Nelson v. Hernandez) 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

Nelson v. Hernandez, 100 A.D.3d 761, 953 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[762]*762In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Pedro Hernandez appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated August 4, 2011, which denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated April 29, 2011, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing.

Ordered that the order dated August 4, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied Pedro Hernandez’s motion to vacate an order of protection entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing. A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon default must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Adolph H. Schreiber Hebrew Academy of Rockland, Inc. v Needleman, 90 AD3d 791 [2011]). Here, Hernandez failed to satisfy that standard.

Hernandez’s remaining contention is without merit. Eng, PJ., Florio, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[762]*762In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Pedro Hernandez appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated August 4, 2011, which denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated April 29, 2011, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing.

Ordered that the order dated August 4, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied Pedro Hernandez’s motion to vacate an order of protection entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing. A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon default must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Adolph H. Schreiber Hebrew Academy of Rockland, Inc. v Needleman, 90 AD3d 791 [2011]). Here, Hernandez failed to satisfy that standard.

Hernandez’s remaining contention is without merit. Eng, PJ., Florio, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 761, 953 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack