Moreno v. Ramos
| Decision Date | 17 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2018–10433,Docket No. O–4825–17 |
| Citation | 174 A.D.3d 716,102 N.Y.S.3d 442 (Mem) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Gabrielle G. MORENO, Respondent, v. Hector RAMOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
174 A.D.3d 716
102 N.Y.S.3d 442 (Mem)
In the Matter of Gabrielle G. MORENO, Respondent,
v.
Hector RAMOS, Appellant.
2018–10433
Docket No. O–4825–17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—June 14, 2019
July 17, 2019
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
Joseph Petito, Poughkeepsie, NY, for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Hector Ramos appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joan S. Posner, J.), dated August 15, 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 for a scheduled court date.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this family offense proceeding, which was commenced by the appellant's step-daughter, the Family Court issued an order of protection against the appellant and in favor of the petitioner, after an inquest, upon the appellant's failure to appear for a scheduled court date. The appellant thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order of protection on the ground of excusable default. In an order dated August 15, 2018, the Family Court denied his motion on the ground, inter alia, that it was supported solely by an affirmation from his counsel, who did not have personal knowledge of the facts constituting the appellant's proffered excuse. We affirm.
"A respondent seeking to vacate an order of protection
entered upon his or her failure to appear on a family offense petition must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition" ( Matter of McKinney v. Jones , 151 A.D.3d 973, 973, 54 N.Y.S.3d 304 ; see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Matter of Ignatieva v. Sullivan , 169 A.D.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Madelyn
...by satisfying both the support and ... communication provisions of the statute, does the court proceed to determine whether he has 174 A.D.3d 716 forfeited that right by evincing an intent to forego his ... parental ... rights and obligations" ( Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 N.Y.2d 1090, ......
-
Dutchess Cnty. Dep't of Cmty. & Family Servs. v. Newmexico (In re Malcome X.K.)
...scheduled court date (see Matter of Ramos v. Ramos, 174 A.D.3d 718, 718–719, 102 N.Y.S.3d 484 ; 179 A.D.3d 685 Matter of Moreno v. Ramos, 174 A.D.3d 716, 717, 102 N.Y.S.3d 442 ). The representations of counsel alone, made "upon information and belief," were insufficient to meet the burden o......
-
Abella v. Szileszky
...reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Matter of Moreno v. Ramos, 174 A.D.3d 716, 716–717, 102 N.Y.S.3d 442 ). Here, contrary to Szileszky's contention, he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default. Szileszk......
-
Aponte v. Jagnarain
...defense to the petition" (Matter of Abella v Szileszky, 177 A.D.3d 729, 729-730; see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Moreno v Ramos, 174 A.D.3d 716, 716-717). "The determination of whether to relieve a party of a default is within the sound discretion of the Family Court" (Matter of Goldstein v ......