| Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05774 [74 AD3d 1347] |
| June 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christine Proctor-Shields,Respondent, v John Shields, Appellant. |
—[*1] O'Rourke & Hansen, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (James J. O'Rourke of counsel), forrespondent.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated June 11, 2009, which denied hisobjections to an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.), dated March 30, 2009, which denied hismotion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated August 26, 2008, entered upon hisdefault, granting the mother's petition for an award of child support.
Ordered that the order dated June 11, 2009 is affirmed, with costs.
This Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults entered as to childsupport "because the state's interest in the marital res and related issues such as child support andcustody favors dispositions on the merits" (Matter of Pinto v Putnam County SupportCollection Unit, 295 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]). Nonetheless, it remains incumbent upon amovant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing an application and todemonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to that application (seeCPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Diaz v Diaz, 71 AD3d 947 [2010]; Matter of Armstrong vDoby, 69 AD3d 933 [2010]).
The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sounddiscretion of the Family Court (see Young Chen v Ruihua Li, 67 AD3d 905, 906 [2009]).Although the father of the subject children admitted that he was aware of the subject courtappearance, he claimed that he failed to appear because he relied upon the assurance of themother that she would secure an adjournment. The mother denied that she agreed to anadjournment. The Support Magistrate's resolution of this credibility issue is entitled to greatdeference, and it was not an improvident exercise of the Support Magistrate's discretion to findthis excuse unreasonable (see Matter of Tsarova v Tsarov, 59 AD3d 632, 633 [2009]).Thus, since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, the Family Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the father's objections to the Support Magistrate'sorder denying his motion to vacate the order of child support entered upon his default (seeMatter of Conwell v Booth, 66 AD3d 773 [2009]; Morel v Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638[1992]).[*2]
Since the father failed to establish a reasonable excusefor his default, we need not reach the issue of whether he presented a potentially meritoriousdefense (see Matter of Conwell v Booth, 66 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of New YorkCity Commr. of Social Servs. v Hills, 203 AD2d 574, 575 [1994]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.