Oliphant v. Oliphant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliphant v. Oliphant

21 A.D.3d 376, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 376 (Oliphant v. Oliphant) 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

Oliphant v. Oliphant, 21 A.D.3d 376, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Horowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), entered June 10, 2003, denying his motion to vacate an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), dated February 5, 2003, awarding child support after an inquest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Zherka v Zherka, 17 AD3d 668 [2005]; Rolston v Rolston, 261 AD2d 377 [1999]). The father failed to satisfy that standard in this case. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Horowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), entered June 10, 2003, denying his motion to vacate an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), dated February 5, 2003, awarding child support after an inquest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Zherka v Zherka, 17 AD3d 668 [2005]; Rolston v Rolston, 261 AD2d 377 [1999]). The father failed to satisfy that standard in this case. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 376, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliphant-v-oliphant-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack