McNamara v. McNamara
| Decision Date | 30 November 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08052,42 N.Y.S.3d 314,144 A.D.3d 1112 |
| Parties | Lisa McNAMARA, respondent, v. Robert McNAMARA, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
144 A.D.3d 1112
42 N.Y.S.3d 314
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08052
Lisa McNAMARA, respondent,
v.
Robert McNAMARA, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 30, 2016.
Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, N.Y., for appellant.
Harry Tilis, Bohemia, N.Y., for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol MacKenzie, J.), dated October 10, 2014. The judgment, upon the defendant's failure to appear for a trial on ancillary economic issues, upon a decision of that court dated March 31, 2014, made after the trial, and upon an order of that court dated July 7, 2014, denying the defendant's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate his default and to vacate stated portions of the decision, among other things, equitably distributed the marital property and awarded the plaintiff child support.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“Although this Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions, it is still incumbent upon a defendant [seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) ] to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and the existence of a potentially meritorious
defense” (Dervisevic v. Dervisevic, 89 A.D.3d 785, 785, 932 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; see Capurso v. Capurso, 134 A.D.3d 974, 975–976, 24 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Farhadi v. Qureshi, 105 A.D.3d 990, 991, 964 N.Y.S.2d 214 ). The determination of what constitutes a “reasonable excuse” lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Capurso v. Capurso, 134 A.D.3d at 976, 24 N.Y.S.3d 78 ; Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v. Charles, 103 A.D.3d 683, 684, 959 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; Rivera v. Komor, 69 A.D.3d 833, 892 N.Y.S.2d 769 ).
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plotkin v. Republic-Franklin Ins. Co.
...(see Merritt Hill Vineyards v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106, 110–111, 472 N.Y.S.2d 592, 460 N.E.2d 1077 ; Kweku v. Thomas, 144 A.D.3d at 1112 ; Rubiano v. Kelly, 136 A.D.3d 780, 782, 26 N.Y.S.3d 106 ). MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LEVENTHAL and CHRISTOPHER, JJ.,...
-
Park Lane N. Owners, Inc. v. Gengo
...of the Supreme Court" ( Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Charles, 103 A.D.3d 683, 684, 959 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; see McNamara v. McNamara, 144 A.D.3d 1112, 1112–1113, 42 N.Y.S.3d 314 ; Capurso v. Capurso, 134 A.D.3d 974, 975–976, 24 N.Y.S.3d 78 ). Here, the defendant offered no excuse for his counsel'......
- Kweku v. Thomas
-
Merlino v. Merlino, 2017–12317
...of a potentially meritorious defense" ( Dervisevic v. Dervisevic, 89 A.D.3d 785, 786, 932 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; see McNamara v. McNamara, 144 A.D.3d 1112, 1112, 42 N.Y.S.3d 314 ; Celesia v. Celesia, 136 A.D.3d 854, 855, 26 N.Y.S.3d 292 ; Farhadi v. Qureshi, 105 A.D.3d 990, 991, 964 N.Y.S.2d 214 ).......