Matter of Gustave-Francois v Francois

Matter of Gustave-Francois v Francois 2011 NY Slip Op 07425 Decided on October 18, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 18, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2011-01940
(Docket No. U-17915-06)

[*1]In the Matter of Carline Gustave-Francois, respondent,

v

Herod Francois, appellant. Herod Francois, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y.
(Francis F. Caputo and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated January 18, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, S.M.), dated November 4, 2010, denying his motion to vacate a prior order of support dated June 22, 2010, which, upon his default in appearing at a hearing, granted the mother's petition and set his child support obligation at the sum of $770 per month.

ORDERED that the order dated January 18, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While this Court prefers to resolve matters concerning child support on the merits, it is still necessary for a party seeking to vacate an order entered upon default to show that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields, 74 AD3d 1347; Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539). Here, the father offered no excuse for his failure to appear at a hearing. Thus, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's objections to the order dated November 4, 2010, denying his motion to vacate a prior order of support entered upon his default.

Since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not reach the issue of whether he presented a potentially meritorious defense.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court