You are here: / / APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT...

APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING.

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied a motion to vacate an order of protection. Appellant had been slightly late for a hearing on her sister’s request for an order of protection and the order was issued based upon appellant’s default:

In this family offense proceeding, the Family Court issued an order of protection against the appellant and in favor of her sister upon the appellant’s failure to appear at a hearing. The appellant moved to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default, and the Family Court denied her motion. * * *

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default in appearing at the hearing. The appellant showed no willfulness or intent to default, where she was minimally tardy to the hearing, and the tardiness might have been due, at least in part, to crowded conditions at the courthouse, she attended prior court appearances, she engaged in motion practice through her attorney, and she participated in multiple preparatory conferences with her attorney … . Also, the appellant moved to vacate the order of protection relatively soon after it was issued. Under the circumstances, the appellant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the hearing. Further, the appellant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the petition …. . Matter of Williams v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 01873, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING)/DEFAULT (FAMILY LAW, APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING)

You might also like
THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO OBTAIN COUNSEL WAS NOT MOOT, DESPITE THE FACT THE TRIAL WAS HELD AND COMPLETED IN PETITIONER’S ABSENCE; THE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE PERFORMED PROCEDURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THEREBY NEGATING THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements for Preservation of Collateral (Security for a Promissory Note) Explained
TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN ICY CONDITION PRECLUDED SUIT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT LAID FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE WERE NOT MET AND PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITS RECOUPMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL...