Matter of Joosten v. Joosten
| Decision Date | 26 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-05477. |
| Citation | 32 A.D.3d 1030,820 N.Y.S.2d 899,2006 NY Slip Op 06858 |
| Parties | In the Matter of CRAIG JOOSTEN, SR., Appellant, v. CAROL JOOSTEN, Also Known as CAROL BOOTHE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To vacate a judgment entered upon a default, the movant must demonstrate the existence of a reasonable excuse for the default and, a meritorious defense (see Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant, 21 AD3d 376 [2005]; Koslosky v Koslosky, 267 AD2d 357 [1999]; Rolston v Rolston, 261 AD2d 377 [1999]; Gorsky v Gorsky, 148 AD2d 674 [1989]).
On October 14, 2004 during a conference at which the father was present, the Family Court directed an unequivocal December 9, 2004 hearing date. On December 9, 2004, however, the father's counsel announced that the father was "refusing to come to court," and the Family Court granted the joint application of the mother and the Law Guardians to dismiss the petition.
The father's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion that his attorney had informed him that he was not required to appear on December 9, 2004 is unpersuasive, inadequate to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default and "wholly insufficient to override the obligation of the court to conduct the [hearing] in a timely manner" (O'Donnell v O'Donnell, 172 AD2d 654, 655 [1991]). Accordingly, under the circumstances, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default. The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's motion to vacate the December 9, 2004 order entered upon his default in appearing (see Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant, supra; Koslosky v Koslosky, supra; Benito v Childs, 253 AD2d 474 [1998]; O'Donnell v O'Donnell, supra at 655).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwin Gould Servs. for Children & Families v. (In re Latisha T'Keyah J.)
...S.], 72 A.D.3d 682, 683, 897 N.Y.S.2d 915;Matter of Viergela A., 40 A.D.3d 630, 631–632, 835 N.Y.S.2d 373;Matter of Joosten v. Joosten, 32 A.D.3d 1030, 1030, 820 N.Y.S.2d 899;Matter of Coates v. Lee, 32 A.D.3d 539, 539, 819 N.Y.S.2d 837;Matter of Danielle R., 239 A.D.2d 305, 305, 658 N.Y.S.......
-
Hurston v. Southlea
...534, 534, 755 N.Y.S.2d 277). Here, the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default ( see Matter of Joosten v. Joosten, 32 A.D.3d 1030, 1030, 820 N.Y.S.2d 899; Matter of Lutz v. Goldstone, 31 A.D.3d 449, 450, 819 N.Y.S.2d 66; Matter of Oliphant v. Oliphant, 21 A.D.3d 376, ......
-
In the Matter Joosten v. Joosten
...v. Carol JOOSTEN, Also Known as Carol Boothe, Respondent. Court of Appeals of New York. January 11, 2007. Reported below, 32 A.D.3d 1030, 820 N.Y.S.2d 899. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceedin......
- Matter of Iacone v. Building Department of Oyster Bay Cove Village