From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bird v. Bird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2010
77 A.D.3d 1382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Summary

In Bird v. Bird, 77 A.D.3d 1382, 908 N.Y.S.2d 317 (4th Dept.2010), the wife, acting pro se, defaulted but later proved that she was misled by her husband when the default occurred.

Summary of this case from Barone v. Barone

Opinion

No. CA 09-01404.

October 1, 2010.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), dated June 10, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of defendant to vacate a default judgment of divorce.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted in part and the default judgment of divorce is vacated.

MARK S. CARNEY, BUFFALO (JASON R. DIPASQUALE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Present — Martoche, J.P., Carni, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


Memorandum: Defendant, as limited by her brief on appeal, contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that part of her motion seeking to vacate the default judgment of divorce. We agree. "Although a party seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense, `[o]ur courts have embraced a liberal policy with respect to vacating default judgments in matrimonial actions'" ( Dunbar v Dunbar, 233 AD2d 922, 922; see De Pass v De Pass, 42 AD3d 723, 724). In support of her motion, defendant submitted evidence that she was not represented by counsel and that plaintiff misled her with respect to his intention to pursue the divorce action ( see generally D'Alleva v D'Alleva, 127 AD2d 732, 735). In addition, defendant established a meritorious claim to her distributive share of the marital property from the marriage of nearly 20 years' duration ( see Viner v Viner, 291 AD2d 398). We thus conclude, particularly in light of the public policy favoring the disposition of matrimonial actions on the merits, that the court erred in denying defendant's motion insofar as it sought vacatur of the default judgment of divorce ( see id. at 399; see also Dunbar, 233 AD2d 922).


Summaries of

Bird v. Bird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2010
77 A.D.3d 1382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

In Bird v. Bird, 77 A.D.3d 1382, 908 N.Y.S.2d 317 (4th Dept.2010), the wife, acting pro se, defaulted but later proved that she was misled by her husband when the default occurred.

Summary of this case from Barone v. Barone
Case details for

Bird v. Bird

Case Details

Full title:JOHN J. BIRD, Respondent, v. VICKIE L. BIRD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 1382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6932
908 N.Y.S.2d 317

Citing Cases

Osman v. Osman

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate her…

Barone v. Barone

In reaching this conclusion, this court acknowledges that the standards for vacatur set forth in CPLR 5015(a)…