Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Baumer v. Baumer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 24, 2000

268 A.D.2d 495; 702 N.Y.S.2d 346; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 692

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Calle v. Calle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Zherka v. Zherka (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Raskin v. Raskin (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)
Uzo v. Uzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Donaghy v. Donaghy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Raso v. Raso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
McGusty v. McGusty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Puchal v. Puchal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a matrimonial action in which the *496parties were divorced by a judgment entered June 21, 1993, upon the default of the defendant former husband in appearing and answering, the plaintiff former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated June 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment is reinstated.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the default judgment. Although the courts have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions, the defaulting party is still required to show a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Adams v Adams, 255 AD2d 535; Kogan v Kogan, 253 AD2d 739; Booska v Booska, 246 AD2d 567). Here, the defendant has not met that burden. Further, the defendant delayed almost six years before making this application (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Koch v Koch, 198 AD2d 701; Anderson v Anderson, 144 AD2d 512; Black v Black, 141 AD2d 689). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.