From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benjamin v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the motion in its entirety and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent of modifying the judgment by adding a provision thereto severing the plaintiffs cause of action for equitable distribution; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an inquest on the ancillary issues.

Although this Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions ( see, Louis v. Louis, 231 A.D.2d 612; Schorr v. Schorr, 213 A.D.2d 621), it is still incumbent upon the party seeking to vacate a default to establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( see, Sayagh v. Sayagh, 205 A.D.2d 678; Kellerman v. Kellerman, 203 A.D.2d 533). The determination of whether to vacate a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Wayasamin v. Wayasamin, 167 A.D.2d 460).

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the defendant's motion to vacate her default. The defendant showed a reasonable excuse for her default, but failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense on the issue of fault ( see, Kyriacopoulos v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 A.D.2d 532; Chery v. Anthony, 156 A.D.2d 414; Tissot v. Tissot, 243 A.D.2d 462).

However, to the extent that the judgment contained no provision concerning equitable distribution or maintenance, it must be reopened ( see, Katta v. Katta, 203 A.D.2d 531; Michalek v. Michalek, 180 A.D.2d 890; Wayasamin v. Wayasamin, 167 A.D.2d 460, supra; Danois v. Danois, 154 A.D.2d 504). The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for an inquest on those issues. We note that our determination does not affect the provision of the judgment which granted the plaintiff a divorce.

O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Benjamin v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Benjamin v. Benjamin

Case Details

Full title:PARK BENJAMIN III, Respondent, v. CANDICE L. J. BENJAMIN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 13, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 361

Citing Cases

Wong v. Wong

d a meritorious defense, this court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in…

Rosen v. Rosen

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Although the courts have adopted a…