Helen T. v. Roosevelt B., 256 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Helen T. v. Roosevelt B., 256 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lockitt v. Booker (nyappdiv, 2011-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lockitt v. Booker
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ordered that the order dated June 30, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. “ ‘While disposition of matters on their merits, especially with regard to filiation and support, is preferred, the court retains the discretion to deny a motion to vacate a default where it is not supported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a [potentially] meritorious defense’ ” (Matter of Armstrong v Doby, 69 AD3d 933, 934 [2010], quoting Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. Doby
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
“While disposition of matters on their merits, especially with regard to filiation and support, is preferred, the court retains the discretion to deny a motion to vacate a default where it is not supported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense” (Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suffolk County Department of Social Services v. Anthony R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
While a party moving to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]), this rule is not applied with equal rigor in filiation and support cases where a disposition on the merits is favored (see Matter of Gabriel v Cooper, 26 AD3d 493, 494 [2006]; Adams v Adams, 255 AD2d 535, 536 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commissioner of Social Services of Ulster County v. Powell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In addition, he offers no reasonable explanation why he purportedly did not appear at the paternity trial or proof of his nonap pearance (see Matter of Helen T. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]), he makes no allegation that his nonappearance was due to any fraud or misrepresentation, and he does not attempt to explain why the “imposter” contested paternity (cf. Matter of Onondaga County Dept. of Social Servs. v Junior L.C., 296 AD2d 845, 846 [2002] [challenge to jurisdiction]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Helen T.
v.
Roosevelt B., (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Helen T. v. Roosevelt B., (Matter No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 28, 1998.
256 A.D.2d 583
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13994
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 (Matter No. 1), and a related support-proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 (Matter No. 2), the father appeals, by permission, from (1) an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 20, 1996, in Matter No. 1, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court, dated October 4, 1995, rendered upon his default in appearing for a blood test, and (2) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Miklitsch, H.E.), dated March 4, 1997, in Matter No. 2, which, inter alia, directed him to pay child support of $38 weekly plus arrears.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[*584] While disposition of matters on their merits, especially with regard to filiation and support, is preferred, the court retains the discretion to deny a motion to vacate a default where it is not supported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Matter of O’Donnell v Griff G. W., 120 AD2d 668; see also, Matter of Reid v White, 112 Misc 2d 294).

In the instant matter, the appellant father has not proffered reasonable excuses for his failure to appear for the human leukocyte antigen (hereinafter HLA) blood tests scheduled for May 17, 1995, and June 26, 1995, which were ordered at his request. He has likewise failed to offer reasonable excuses for his defaults in appearance before the Dutchess County Family Court on August 25, 1995, and September 13, 1995. The appellant’s conclusory denials of paternity, which are bereft of even a single relevant factual assertion, are patently insufficient to constitute a meritorious defense to the mother’s paternity petition. Accordingly, the Family Court, Dutchess County, did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default order of filiation. Since the father has failed to establish the only argument he has raised to contest his obligation to pay for the support of his son, there is no basis in the record to disturb the order of support by the Family Court, Rockland County.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.