From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Baucom v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 1999
261 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 18, 1999

Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.).


Respondent's objection to the denial of his motion to vacate the child support order entered against him upon default was properly denied since respondent failed to present a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear on the adjourned date he himself had requested in the support proceedings before the Hearing Examiner ( see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). The excuse proffered by respondent in support of his objection, but not advanced before the Hearing Examiner on the motion to vacate his default, that he had a conflicting court appearance in Buffalo, was not properly raised for the first time in support of the objection ( see, Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). In any event, respondent's testimony in the Buffalo matter did not take place until the day after he was scheduled to appear in the subject support proceedings and it is, at best, unclear how the Buffalo appearance rendered the New York County appearance impracticable.

We have considered respondent's remaining argument and find it unpersuasive.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Baucom v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 1999
261 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Baucom v. Francis

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JACQUELINE BAUCOM, Respondent, v. ANTHONY D. FRANCIS…

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

Date published: May 18, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 236

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Ginther v. Ginther

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with…

In the Matter of Coleman v. Thomas

On appeal, the father argues that Family Court Act §§ 580-304 and 580-305 are unconstitutional, both on their…