In the Matter of Jurow v. Cahill
| Decision Date | 12 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | 0-10527/06.,0-10086/06.,2007-03773.,0-10529/06. |
| Citation | 866 N.Y.S.2d 874,56 A.D.3d 559,2008 NY Slip Op 08738 |
| Parties | In the Matter of BILL IAN JUROW, Appellant, v. KAREN CAHILL, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of KAREN CAHILL, Respondent, v. BILL IAN JUROW, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 26, 2007, as denied that branch of the motion of Bill Ian Jurow which was to vacate the order of protection dated December 15, 2006, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The order of protection, which was not predicated upon an adverse finding against Bill Ian Jurow, expired by its own terms on December 15, 2007. Under these circumstances, the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of Jurow's motion which was to vacate the order of protection must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Schreiber v Schreiber, 2 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2003]).
To succeed on that branch of his motion which was to vacate the order dismissing the family offense proceedings he commenced against Karen Cahill, Jurow was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Matter of Dellagatta v McGillicuddy, 31 AD3d 549, 550 [2006]; Matter of Butterworth v Sperber, 6 AD3d 530, 531 [2004]). However, Jurow failed to satisfy that standard (cf. Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 32 AD3d 1030 [2006]).
Jurow's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. Rosoff
...745, 745, 912 N.Y.S.2d 633;seeCPLR 5015[a]; Matter of Mongitore v. Linz, 95 A.D.3d 1130, 943 N.Y.S.2d 899;Matter of Jurow v. Cahill, 56 A.D.3d 559, 559–560, 866 N.Y.S.2d 874). However, “the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings,” and thus the “general rule with re......
-
Hines v. Baptiste
..., 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 Territo v. Keane , 55 A.D.3d 744, 864 N.Y.S.2d 789 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to......
-
Ignatieva v. Sullivan, 2018–02817
...984, 985, 918 N.Y.S.2d 577 ; see also Matter of McKinney v. Jones, 151 A.D.3d 973, 973–974, 54 N.Y.S.3d 304 ; Matter of Jurow v. Cahill, 56 A.D.3d 559, 559–560, 866 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). Further, his conclusory assertions were insufficient to constitute a potentially meritorious defense (see Matt......
-
Stephanie F. v. Leon H.
...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 Territo v. Keane, 55 A.D.3d 744, 864 N.Y.S.2d 789 ), and his conclusory assertions were insufficient to cons......