Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: MARYBETH D., Petitioner–Respondent, v. HERBERT C., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirmed orders, same court (Serena Rosario, Support Magistrate), entered on or about November 10, 2016 and on or about October 18, 2016, denying respondent's motion to vacate a default, and directing entry of a money judgment in petitioner's favor, for child support arrears, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent failed to offer a reasonable excuse for wilfully absenting himself from the hearing on September 28, 2016 (CPLR 5015[a]; see Goncalves v. Stuyvesant Dev. Assoc., 232 A.D.2d 275, 648 N.Y.S.2d 441 [1st Dept. 1996] ). His status as a pro se litigant does not change this determination. Respondent claims that he believed that the court would entertain the request he made on September 28 for an adjournment and that petitioner would consent to it. The transcript of the September 27 hearing shows that his request had already been denied by the court and objected to by petitioner's counsel. He claims that he attempted to contact the court all morning on September 28 and that he faxed an adjournment request to the court. The transcript shows that the court informed the parties on September 27 that the part would be closed the next morning.
We note that respondent also failed to establish a meritorious defense to the enforcement proceedings (see id. at 276, 648 N.Y.S.2d 441).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 6040
Decided: March 20, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)