Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Petulla v. Petulla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 14, 2011

85 A.D.3d 925; 925 N.Y.S.2d 338

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Williams v. Worthington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Brice v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Strickland v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Strickland v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Matter of Paez v. Bambauer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Hogan v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Nwabueze v. Okafor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Crai v. Crai (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Hurston v. Southlea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Morales v. Marma (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

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 related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated September 12, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court (Stanton, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated March 5, 2008, which, upon her default in appearing at a hearing, inter alia, granted the paternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order dated September 12, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*926“ ‘The determination whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court’ ” (Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d 744, 745 [2009], quoting Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d 502 [2005]; see Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 534 [2003]). A party seeking to vacate such an order must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the demand for relief sought in the petition (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d at 745; Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539, 539 [2006]; Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d at 502). We agree with the Family Court that the mother failed to make the requisite showing.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit, refer to matter dehors the record, or are otherwise not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

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