Goldstein v. Goldstein

• Decision Date: 27 January 2021
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. O-15973-16, V-15981-16, V-3754-15, V-14822-15, V-15977-16, V-15983-16, V-3756-15, V-15976-16, V-15978-16, V-14819-15, V-15979-16, 2019-04532, V-14821-15, V-14820-15,2019–04527, V-15980-16, V-3753-15, 2019-04534, V-3755-15, V-15982-16
• Parties: In the Matter of Miriam GOLDSTEIN, respondent, v. Yechiel GOLDSTEIN, appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2) In the Matter of Yechiel Goldstein, appellant, v. Miriam Goldstein, respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

190 A.D.3d 971
139 N.Y.S.3d 624

In the Matter of Miriam GOLDSTEIN, respondent,
v.
Yechiel GOLDSTEIN, appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2)

In the Matter of Yechiel Goldstein, appellant,
v.
Miriam Goldstein, respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)

2019–04527
2019-04532
2019-04534
Docket Nos. O-15973-16
V-3753-15
V-3754-15
V-3755-15
V-3756-15
V-14819-15
V-14820-15
V-14821-15
V-14822-15
V-15976-16
V-15977-16
V-15978-16
V-15979-16
V-15980-16
V-15981-16
V-15982-16
V-15983-16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—December 7, 2020
January 27, 2021

139 N.Y.S.3d 625

Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.

Beth E. Goldman, New York, N.Y. (Rachel Lieb of counsel), for respondent.

Nesta Johnson, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the children.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the father appeals from two orders and an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Maria Arias, J.), each dated March 18, 2019. The orders, insofar as appealed from, bring up for review the denial of the father's motion to vacate his default in appearing at a continued custody hearing and reopen the custody hearing. The order of protection, insofar as appealed from, brings up for review the denial of the father's application to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing of the family offense petition.

ORDERED that the orders and the order of protection are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 2005. There are four children of the marriage. In January 2015, the mother left the home with the children and filed a family offense petition against the father, seeking orders of protection in favor of herself and the children. The parties thereafter each filed a petition for sole custody of the children.

The fact-finding hearing on the mother's family offense petition commenced on January 8, 2018. On January 22, 2018, the father failed to appear at the continued fact-finding hearing, and the Family Court conducted an inquest. The following day, the father requested to vacate his default and reopen the fact-finding hearing, arguing that his failure to appear should be excused because he had to serve subpoenas for a pending criminal case against him and had only anticipated being late to court. The court denied his application, finding no legal excuse for his failure to appear. The court credited the mother's testimony and determined that the father had committed multiple family offenses against her. However, the court determined that the mother had not proven that family offenses were committed against the children, and thus that portion of the petition for an order of protection was denied. After a dispositional hearing,...