Opinion
Submitted November 19, 1999
January 24, 2000
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 19, 1998, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 15, 1998, which denied her motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment entered upon her default and to reopen the matter for the limited purpose of determining equitable distribution.
S. Jean Smith, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Carl Jay Nathanson, New York, N. Y. (Barbara M. Halper of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the courts have adopted a liberal policy of vacating defaults in matrimonial cases, a defaulting party is still required to show a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Baumer v. Baumer, 268 A.D.2d 495 [decided herewith]; Adams v. Adams, 255 A.D.2d 535 ; Booska v. Booska, 246 A.D.2d 567 ). On this record, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment entered upon her default in appearing at a preliminary conference and an inquest (see, Sidi v. Sidi, 260 A.D.2d 566 ;Benjamin v. Benjamin, 249 A.D.2d 348 ; Babbo v. Babbo, 191 A.D.2d 606 ). Indeed, the plaintiff's own statements demonstrate that her failure to appear at the preliminary hearing and subsequent proceedings was willful (see, Mirza v. Mirza, 248 A.D.2d 447 ; Sayagh v. Sayagh, 205 A.D.2d 678 ).
THOMPSON, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.