Thomas v. Coombs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Coombs

290 A.D.2d 512, 736 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 625

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 512 (Thomas v. Coombs) 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

Thomas v. Coombs, 290 A.D.2d 512, 736 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated August 13, 1999, which denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court (Grosvenor, J.), dated March 11, 1998, entered upon his default in appearing for a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of protection entered upon his default in appearing for a hearing on the mother’s petition. He demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for his default nor a meritorious defense to the petition (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated August 13, 1999, which denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of protection of the same court (Grosvenor, J.), dated March 11, 1998, entered upon his default in appearing for a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s motion to vacate an order of protection entered upon his default in appearing for a hearing on the mother’s petition. He demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for his default nor a meritorious defense to the petition (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 512, 736 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-coombs-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack