Sorokina v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sorokina v. Fernandez

278 A.D.2d 164, 719 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 164 (Sorokina v. Fernandez) 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

Sorokina v. Fernandez, 278 A.D.2d 164, 719 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1999, which denied respondent’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner, entered on or about August 30, 1999, which denied respondent’s application to vacate an order of the Hearing Examiner, entered on or about July 21, 1999, on respondent’s default, confirming the registration of an order of support entered in Family Court in Ontario, Canada, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although offered the opportunity to demonstrate a meritorious defense to registration of the Canadian order of support, respondent failed to do so, despite the passage of two months. Moreover, his failure timely to appear in court on the scheduled day warranted denial of vacatur of his default (see, Matter of Heck v Heck, 248 AD2d 885). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1999, which denied respondent’s objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner, entered on or about August 30, 1999, which denied respondent’s application to vacate an order of the Hearing Examiner, entered on or about July 21, 1999, on respondent’s default, confirming the registration of an order of support entered in Family Court in Ontario, Canada, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although offered the opportunity to demonstrate a meritorious defense to registration of the Canadian order of support, respondent failed to do so, despite the passage of two months. Moreover, his failure timely to appear in court on the scheduled day warranted denial of vacatur of his default (see, Matter of Heck v Heck, 248 AD2d 885). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 164, 719 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorokina-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack