Matter of Conwell v Booth
2009 NY Slip Op 07407 [66 AD3d 773]
October 13, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


In the Matter of Danny J. Conwell, Appellant,
v
JenniferBooth, Respondent.

[*1]Saul Jonathan Klein, P.C., Port Washington, N.Y., for appellant.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forrespondent.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated September 2, 2008, which deniedhis objections to two orders of the same court (Fields, S.M.), both dated June 26, 2008, denyinghis motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of child support dated February 27,2006, entered upon his default in appearing, and dismissing his petition to modify his childsupport obligation, respectively.

Ordered that the order dated September 2, 2008, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the orders of the SupportMagistrate. Whether an order or judgment should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) is amatter of discretion, and such relief may be denied where there is no showing of a reasonableexcuse for the default or a meritorious defense (see Matter of Atkin v Atkin, 55 AD3d 905 [2008]; Matter ofNew York City Commr. of Social Servs. v Hills, 203 AD2d 574, 575 [1994]). Since thefather failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing, we affirm the denial ofhis motion to vacate the order of child support entered on his default, without reaching the issueof whether he has a meritorious defense (see Burnett v Renne, 32 AD3d 449, 450 [2006]; Matter of NewYork City Commr. of Social Servs. v Hills, 203 AD2d at 575).

Contrary to the father's contention, the evidence in the record was insufficient to establishthat he was entitled to a $500 limit on the accrual of total unpaid child support arrears pursuantto Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g) (see Matter of Telfer v Maher, 270 AD2d 494[2000]).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott andAustin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.