You are here: / / ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR, HIS COUNSEL APPEARED AND FATHER WAS THEREFORE...
, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR, HIS COUNSEL APPEARED AND FATHER WAS THEREFORE NOT IN DEFAULT; BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT, APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the portions of the order entered on default, determined father’s failure to appear was not a default because his counsel appeared. Because father was not in default, appeal is not precluded:

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in entering the order upon his default based on his failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the father “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, [w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded” … . Matter of Akol v Afet, 2022 NY Slip Op 03641, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: When counsel appears in Family Court, the party represented by counsel is not in default. An appeal is available to a party not in default.

 

You might also like
City Code and Charter Not Unconstitutionally Applied Re: Searches Related to Certificates of Occupancy
SERIOUS-CRIME DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT SECOND DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).
INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1).
Homeowners’ Association Had Power to Direct Property Owners to Remove Chickens
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT FROM DEFENDANT DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
FOURTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD HAD THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO WAIVE HIS PRESENCE AT THE PERMANENCY HEARING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO APPEAR, APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FOURTH 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

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INTERVIEW A POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY... THE LEVEL THREE STREET STOP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF A...