Petulla v. Petulla

85 A.D.3d 925, 925 N.Y.S.2d 338
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 925 (Petulla v. Petulla) 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
Petulla v. Petulla, 85 A.D.3d 925, 925 N.Y.S.2d 338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated September 12, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court (Stanton, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated March 5, 2008, which, upon her default in appearing at a hearing, inter alia, granted the paternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order dated September 12, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[926]*926“ ‘The determination whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court’ ” (Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d 744, 745 [2009], quoting Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d 502 [2005]; see Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 534 [2003]). A party seeking to vacate such an order must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the demand for relief sought in the petition (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d at 745; Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539, 539 [2006]; Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d at 502). We agree with the Family Court that the mother failed to make the requisite showing.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit, refer to matter dehors the record, or are otherwise not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Paez v. Bambauer
2024 NY Slip Op 04205 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Hogan v. Smith
2022 NY Slip Op 03894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Williams v. Worthington
2021 NY Slip Op 03040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Nwabueze v. Okafor
2018 NY Slip Op 7729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Brice v. Lee
134 A.D.3d 1106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Crai v. Crai
134 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Strickland v. Lewis
110 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Hurston v. Southlea
91 A.D.3d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Morales v. Marma
88 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 925, 925 N.Y.S.2d 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petulla-v-petulla-nyappdiv-2011.