Marrocco v. Marrocco
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Citation | 456 N.Y.S.2d 906,90 A.D.2d 989 |
| Parties | Norene K. MARROCCO, Respondent, v. Michael MARROCCO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Werner Lomker, Rochester, for appellant.
Michael F. Taddonio, Rochester, for respondent.
Before SIMONS, J.P., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, BOOMER and MOULE, JJ.
Defendant was served with an order directing him to appear at Matrimonial Special Term on January 29, 1981 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failure to pay support in accordance with a judgment of divorce and why judgment should not be entered against him for arrearages in child support payments in the amount of $17,600.00. On the day prior to the return date, he consulted an attorney. He appeared with counsel and presented an affidavit and cross-motion to the court. The court ruled defendant to be in default since he had not filed answering papers on the Friday preceding the return date pursuant to prevailing practice in Monroe County Matrimonial Special Term. Rather than making a motion to open the default, defendant appeals.
While no appeal lies from an order entered upon default, the proper remedy being an application to the rendering court to open the default (CPLR 5511, 5015; Morse v. Morse, 67 A.D.2d 750, 412 N.Y.S.2d 220; Furci v. Furci, 45 A.D.2d 1003, 358 N.Y.S.2d 195), we do not view this determination to have been made upon defendant's default. In addition to an appearance with his attorney, defendant submitted a responding affidavit and cross-motion. Granting judgment in the amount of $17,600.00 without affording defendant an opportunity for an adjournment or to be heard on the motion is an improvident exercise of Special Term's discretion (Matter of Black v. Black, 84 A.D.2d 922, 447 N.Y.S.2d 54).
Order unanimously reversed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Marini Builder Inc. v. Rao
...upon default, is inapplicable" (Spatz v. Bajramoski, 214 A.D.2d 436, 436, 624 N.Y.S.2d 606 [emphasis supplied]; see, Marrocco v. Marrocco, 90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906; see also, Achampong v. Weigelt, 240 A.D.2d 247, 658 N.Y.S.2d 606). Consequently, Supreme Court's December 1997 default ......
-
Jann v. Cassidy
...upon the party's default is therefore appealable" (Spatz v. Bajramoski, 214 A.D.2d 436, 624 N.Y.S.2d 606, citing Marrocco v. Marrocco, 90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906). Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment because the record contains no indication that proof of service was filed ......
-
Interboro Management Co. v. State Div. of Human Rights
...5511, 5015; Jensen v. Union Ry. Co., 260 N.Y. 1, 182 N.E. 226; Hull v. Feinberg, 113 A.D.2d 964, 493 N.Y.S.2d 382; Marrocco v. Marrocco, 90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906), and the proper remedy is an application to the rendering court to open the default (see, Marrocco v. Marrocco, supra ). ......
-
Spatz v. Bajramoski
...entered upon default, is inapplicable, and the judgment predicated upon the party's default is therefore appealable (Marrocco v. Marrocco, 90 A.D.2d 989, 456 N.Y.S.2d 906). The IAS court therefore properly determined that the appellant's prior failure to take a timely appeal from entry of t......