Taurins v. Taurins

108 A.D.3d 723, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 24, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 A.D.3d 723 (Taurins v. Taurins) 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
Taurins v. Taurins, 108 A.D.3d 723, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated August 12, 2011, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Blaustein, S.M.), both dated March 3, 2011, which, upon his failure to appear for a scheduled court date, respectively, (1) inter alia, in effect, granted the mother’s petition for enforcement of an order of the same court dated February 3, 2003, directing the entry of a money judgment in the mother’s favor against the father, and calculated the sum of child support arrears to be $66,132.33 as of February 28, 2011, and (2) dismissed, without prejudice, his petition for modification of the order dated February 3, 2003.

Ordered that the order dated August 12, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s orders dated March 3, 2011, entered [724]*724upon the father’s failure to appear for a scheduled court date. The proper procedure to challenge an order entered upon default is to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, to appeal from the denial of that motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Garland v Garland, 28 AD3d 481 [2006]). Here, the father failed to move pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate his default in appearing for a scheduled court date, thus barring him from raising his arguments on appeal (see Matter of Garland v Garland, 28 AD3d at 481). Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Renner v. Costigan
125 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Wen Zong Yu v. Fan
124 A.D.3d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sacks v. Abraham
114 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 A.D.3d 723, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taurins-v-taurins-nyappdiv-2013.