Silverman v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. Reid

259 A.D.2d 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2179

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 550 (Silverman v. Reid) 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

Silverman v. Reid, 259 A.D.2d 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated November 18, 1996, as denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate, inter alia, an order of protection dated June 3, 1996, entered upon his failure to appear at the adjourned date of the hearing on his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court, in its discretion, may relieve a party from the effect of its default upon, inter alia, proof of both a meritorious claim or defense and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Chemical Bank v Vazquez, 234 AD2d 253). On this record, the petitioner has demonstrated neither. [551]*551Rather, as the Family Court concluded, his failure to appear at the hearing was willful and intentional.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before us on this appeal. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated November 18, 1996, as denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate, inter alia, an order of protection dated June 3, 1996, entered upon his failure to appear at the adjourned date of the hearing on his application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court, in its discretion, may relieve a party from the effect of its default upon, inter alia, proof of both a meritorious claim or defense and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Chemical Bank v Vazquez, 234 AD2d 253). On this record, the petitioner has demonstrated neither. [551]*551Rather, as the Family Court concluded, his failure to appear at the hearing was willful and intentional.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before us on this appeal. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-reid-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack