FAILED TO SUPPORT HIS MENTAL ILLNESS CLAIM
Within the context of a divorce case brought before the Westchester County Supreme Court, RG made a motion seeking authorization to sell the marital residence. And because the motion was unopposed, relief was granted in RG’s favor on October 21, 2021.
Some four months later, RG moved to vacate the default, alleging he wasn’t represented by counsel and was suffering from “mental and physical health issues.” And after that request was denied, RG appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
On its review, the AD2 noted that a party seeking this kind of relief must “demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default [in opposing the motion] and the existence of a potentially meritorious [opposition to the motion].”
RG’s application was found to be deficient because he failed to share what efforts he undertook to find a new attorney after his prior counsel had been relieved. And “[m]ore importantly,” he failed to support or otherwise “substantiate” his contention that he suffered from a “mental illness” which prevented him from responding to his wife’s application.
Given that a “reasonable excuse” hadn'tbeen established, the AD2 thought the underlying determination was properly premised and affirmed the outcome.
Was this sick or what?
# # #
DECISION