Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Hurston v. Southlea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 31, 2012

91 A.D.3d 952; 937 N.Y.2d 607

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Crai v. Crai (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Turko v. Daffy's, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Turko v. Daffy's, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

*953The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate the order of disposition entered December 26, 2002, upon his default in appearing at a hearing. A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Morales v Marma, 88 AD3d 722, 722 [2011]; Matter of Petulla v Petulla, 85 AD3d 925, 926 [2011]). “ ‘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, 502 [2005]; see Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 AD2d 534, 534 [2003]). Here, the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 32 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2006]; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450 [2006]; Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant, 21 AD3d 376 [2005]).

The father’s remaining contentions either are without merit, refer to matter dehors the record, or are otherwise not properly before this Court. Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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