Hines v. Baptiste

Decision Date11 December 2019
Docket Number2018-06937,Docket No. O-14240-16/17B
Citation111 N.Y.S.3d 556 (Mem),178 A.D.3d 825
Parties In the Matter of Aliyah HINES, Respondent, v. Peterson Jean BAPTISTE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Helene M. Greenberg, Elmsford, NY, for appellant.

Joanne N. Sirotkin, White Plains, NY, for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P. JEFFREY A. COHEN FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Peterson Jean Baptiste appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene Katz, J.), dated January 23, 2018. The order denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate an order of protection that was entered against him, after an inquest, upon his default in appearing at a continued hearing.

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

The petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding in November 2016, and was granted a temporary order of protection against the appellant. On December 20, 2017, the appellant failed to appear in court for a continued hearing on the family offense petition. After an inquest, the Family Court found that the petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the appellant committed acts constituting family offenses enumerated in Family Court Act § 812. The court further found aggravating circumstances pursuant to Family Court Act § 827, and entered an order of protection directing the appellant to stay away from the petitioner and observe stated conditions of behavior for a period of five years. The appellant subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order of protection entered upon his default, and in the order appealed from, the court denied the motion.

"A party seeking to vacate an order of protection entered upon his or her default in appearing for a hearing on a family offense petition must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition" ( Matter of Nunez v. Lopez , 103 A.D.3d 803, 804, 959 N.Y.S.2d 454 ; see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Matter of Mongitore v. Linz , 95 A.D.3d 1130, 943 N.Y.S.2d 899 ). Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the continued hearing (see Matter of Tamel D. [Curtiz J.—Tanisha R.B.]. , 156 A.D.3d 695, 696, 66 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; Matter of Paul G.D.H. [Yvonne H.] , 147 A.D.3d 699, 699, 48 N.Y.S.3d 137 ; Matter of Jurow v. Cahill , 56 A.D.3d 559, 866 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Goldstein v. Goldstein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 Enero 2021
    ...failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the continued fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Hines v. Baptiste, 178 A.D.3d 825, 825, 111 N.Y.S.3d 556 ; cf. Matter of Lemon v. Faison, 150 A.D.3d 1003, 1004, 56 N.Y.S.3d 131 ). The father had a pattern of being late to ......
  • Aponte v. Jagnarain
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Mayo 2022
    ... ... scheduled to resume (see Matter of Goldstein v ... Goldstein, 190 A.D.3d at 972-973; Matter of Hines v ... Baptiste, 178 A.D.3d 825, 826; Matter of Abella v ... Szileszky, 177 A.D.3d at 730). The mother had discharged ... her ... ...
  • DCH Auto v. Town of Mamaroneck, 2017-03016
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Diciembre 2019
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Estick
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Diciembre 2019

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT