Shabazz v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shabazz v. Johnson

69 A.D.3d 736, 891 N.Y.2d 663

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 736 (Shabazz v. Johnson) 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

Shabazz v. Johnson, 69 A.D.3d 736, 891 N.Y.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the motion of the putative father (hereinafter the appellant) to vacate an order of filiation and a support order entered upon his default in answering or appearing was properly brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and, thus, was not untimely (see Matter of H. v M., 47 AD3d 629 [2008]; State of N.Y. Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Sparozic, 35 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2006]). Moreover, in view of the testimony and evidentiary submissions presented by the appellant at the hearing, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant was properly served in the proceeding (see Family Ct Act §§ 427, 525; CPLR [737]*737308; Matter of Griffin v Griffin, 215 AD2d 386 [1995]). Since the Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellant, the orders of filiation and support entered upon the appellant’s default should have been unconditionally vacated and the proceeding dismissed (see Delgado v Velecela, 56 AD3d 515, 516-517 [2008]; Matter of H. v M., 47 AD3d at 630). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the motion of the putative father (hereinafter the appellant) to vacate an order of filiation and a support order entered upon his default in answering or appearing was properly brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and, thus, was not untimely (see Matter of H. v M., 47 AD3d 629 [2008]; State of N.Y. Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Sparozic, 35 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2006]). Moreover, in view of the testimony and evidentiary submissions presented by the appellant at the hearing, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant was properly served in the proceeding (see Family Ct Act §§ 427, 525; CPLR [737]*737308; Matter of Griffin v Griffin, 215 AD2d 386 [1995]). Since the Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellant, the orders of filiation and support entered upon the appellant’s default should have been unconditionally vacated and the proceeding dismissed (see Delgado v Velecela, 56 AD3d 515, 516-517 [2008]; Matter of H. v M., 47 AD3d at 630). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 736, 891 N.Y.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shabazz-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack