Zimet v. Bufano, 65 A.D.3d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Zimet v. Bufano, 65 A.D.3d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2012–2024 · …at a permanency hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of a permanency goal, or a goal change, by a preponderance of the evidence at p. 1039 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2018–2021 · …family court act article 10-a governs permanency hearings for children placed outside of their homes ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Isaiah T.F.-C. (Charisse F.--D'Juan C.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the continuation of the permanency goal of placement of the subject child for adoption was in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Acension C.L. [Jesate J.], 96 AD3d 1059 , 1060 [2012]; Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Duane S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the father’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the continuation of the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” with regard to the child Duane S., Jr., was in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]; Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Duane S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the father’s contention, the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the continuation of the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” with regard to the child Duane S., Jr., was in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]; Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nazier B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“At a permanency hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of a permanency goal, or a goal change, by a preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]; see Matter of Nigel S., 44 AD3d 673 [2007]; Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 554 [2007]). “ ‘[A]n overarching consideration always obtains for children to be returned to biological parents, if at all possible and responsible’ ” (Matter of Glenn B., 303 AD2d 498, 498 [2003], quoting Matter of Dale P., 84 NY2d 72, 77 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Acension C.L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
At a permanency hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of a permanency goal, or a goal change, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2009]; Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nazier B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“At a permanency hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of a permanency goal, or a goal change, by a preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]; see Matter of Nigel S., 44 AD3d 673 [2007]; Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 554 [2007]). “ ‘[A]n overarching consideration always obtains for children to be returned to biological parents, if at all possible and responsible’ ” (Matter of Glenn B., 303 AD2d 498, 498 [2003], quoting Matter of Dale P., 84 NY2d 72, 77 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Acension C.L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
At a permanency hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of a permanency goal, or a goal change, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2009]; Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jose T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Petitioner met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that its recommendation to modify the permanency goal from placement for adoption to APPLA was in the child’s best interests (see generally Sean S., 85 AD3d at 1576 ; Matter of Michael D. [Antionette R.], 71 AD3d 1017 [2010]; Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Sean S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Petitioner met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that its determination to change the permanency goals of the brothers from adoption to APPLA was in the children’s best interests (see generally Matter of Michael D. [Antionette R.], 71 AD3d 1017 [2010]; Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Hayley PP.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Insofar as is relevant to these appeals, Family Ct Act § 1089 vests Family Court with the authority to determine whether, “upon the proof adduced . . . and in accordance with the best interests and safety of the child, . . . the placement of the child [should] be terminated and the child returned to the parent” (Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [1]; see Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2009]; Matter of Amber B., 50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Patricia A. (Norman A.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In the order on appeal, Family Court properly denied respondents’ motion, because a preponderance of the evidence in the record supported the determination that the permanency goal of adoption was in the children’s best interest (id. at 1120-1121; see also Matter of Cristella B., 65 AD3d 1037, 1039 [2d Dept 2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary J. Zimet
v.
Rosemary Bufano
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 8, 2009.
65 A.D.3d 1037
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Rosemary Búfano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J), dated June 27, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 20, 2007, upon her default in answering, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, was in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $57,350.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment is granted.

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon default, a defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; Amato v Fast Repair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429 [2005]; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627 [2004]). In this case, the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for her default. In addition, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, including whether the claims made by the plaintiff in this case had been settled by the parties in 2001 during prior litigation. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.