| Matter of Armstrong v Doby |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00675 [69 AD3d 933] |
| January 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Yvonne Armstrong,Respondent, v Alonzo E. Doby, Appellant. |
—[*1] Breiter and Gura, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jeanne C. Breiter of counsel), forrespondent.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated April 7, 2009, which denied hisobjections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.), dated January 8, 2009, denying thatbranch of his motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated October 30, 2008,which, upon his default in appearing telephonically for a hearing on the mother's petition forchild support, granted the petition and the mother's motion for an award of an attorney's fee inthe sum of $8,500.
Ordered that the order dated April 7, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
"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 notsupported by a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense" (Matter of HelenT. v Roosevelt B., 256 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Here, theFamily Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's objections to the orderdenying that branch of his motion which was to vacate the order of support entered upon hisdefault, since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 32AD3d 1030, 1030 [2006]; Matterof Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450 [2006]; Matter of Jazel Dominique D.,209 AD2d 410, 411 [1994]; Matter of Nathalie A., 145 AD2d 629, 630 [1988]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.