From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurston v. Southlea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2012
91 A.D.3d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-01-31

In the Matter of Silva HURSTON, respondent, v. Kendall SOUTHLEA, appellant.


Kendall Southlea, Carson, California, appellant pro se.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Malone, J.), dated March 18, 2011, which denied his motion to vacate an order of disposition of the same court (Jamieson, J.), entered December 26, 2002, which, upon his default in appearing at a hearing, granted the mother's petition for an award of child support arrears, and directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother and against him in the principal sum of $12,053.

ORDERED that the order dated March 18, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The 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 A.D.3d 722, 722, 930 N.Y.S.2d 629; Matter of Petulla v. Petulla, 85 A.D.3d 925, 926, 925 N.Y.S.2d 338). “ ‘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 A.D.3d 744, 745, 870 N.Y.S.2d 799, quoting Matter of Francisco R., 19 A.D.3d 502, 502, 796 N.Y.S.2d 247 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T., 302 A.D.2d 534, 534, 755 N.Y.S.2d 277). Here, the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default ( see Matter of Joosten v. Joosten, 32 A.D.3d 1030, 1030, 820 N.Y.S.2d 899; Matter of Lutz v. Goldstone, 31 A.D.3d 449, 450, 819 N.Y.S.2d 66; Matter of Oliphant v. Oliphant, 21 A.D.3d 376, 798 N.Y.S.2d 914).

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.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hurston v. Southlea

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2012
91 A.D.3d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Hurston v. Southlea

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Silva HURSTON, respondent, v. Kendall SOUTHLEA, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

91 A.D.3d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
937 N.Y.S.2d 607
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 785

Citing Cases

Crai v. Crai

ORDERED that the order dated December 24, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A party seeking…

Crai v. Crai

A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default, as well as a…