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: Joseph TITO, Respondent, v. Gina TITO, Appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to enforce the child visitation provision of a stipulation of settlement dated February 29, 1996, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated May 28, 1999, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 22, 1998, entered upon her default in appearing at a hearing, granting the father's petition, and awarding him counsel fees in the sum of $4,790.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's motion to vacate the order entered upon her default in appearing at the hearing on December 22, 1998. She failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her decision not to appear and failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the father's petition (see, Matter of Violet Crystal F., 270 A.D.2d 163, 704 N.Y.S.2d 257; Matter of Silverman v. Reid, 259 A.D.2d 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 904; Matter of McCaffrey v. McCaffrey, 210 A.D.2d 409, 620 N.Y.S.2d 102). Furthermore, pursuant to the stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged in the parties' judgment of divorce, if either party failed to perform his or her obligations under the stipulation, the defaulting party was to indemnify the nondefaulting party for “actual attorney fees” and/or expenses incurred in an enforcement proceeding. Accordingly, upon finding after the hearing that the mother had violated the visitation provisions of the stipulation of settlement, the court properly directed the mother to pay the actual attorney's fees incurred by the father in connection with this proceeding to enforce his visitation rights (see, Matter of Curiel v. Curiel, 262 A.D.2d 639, 694 N.Y.S.2d 78; Zeitlin v. Zeitlin, 250 A.D.2d 607, 672 N.Y.S.2d 379).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 10, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)