Walczak v. Walczak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walczak v. Walczak

177 A.D.2d 1045, 578 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15847

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 1045 (Walczak v. Walczak) 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

Walczak v. Walczak, 177 A.D.2d 1045, 578 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Generally, in matrimonial matters, the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating default judgments (see, Schrader v Schrader, 152 AD2d 987; Otto v Otto, 150 AD2d 57, 60; Black v Black, 141 AD2d 689; Antonovich v Antonovich, 84 AD2d 799). The vacatur of a default judgment, however, is discretionary with the court (see, Black v Black, supra, at 689; Candeloro v Candeloro, 133 AD2d 731) and it is still incumbent upon the moving defendant to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default and to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Schrader v Schrader, supra, at 988). In our view, defendant failed to meet his dual burden. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the financial provisions of the default judgment of annulment constituted a proper exercise of discretion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Vacate Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Generally, in matrimonial matters, the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating default judgments (see, Schrader v Schrader, 152 AD2d 987; Otto v Otto, 150 AD2d 57, 60; Black v Black, 141 AD2d 689; Antonovich v Antonovich, 84 AD2d 799). The vacatur of a default judgment, however, is discretionary with the court (see, Black v Black, supra, at 689; Candeloro v Candeloro, 133 AD2d 731) and it is still incumbent upon the moving defendant to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default and to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Schrader v Schrader, supra, at 988). In our view, defendant failed to meet his dual burden. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the financial provisions of the default judgment of annulment constituted a proper exercise of discretion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Vacate Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 1045, 578 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walczak-v-walczak-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack