Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the father's request is denied)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of B.B. v. M.C.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 8, 2026
Docket
Docket No. U31929/15 U31929-15/16A U31929-15/16B U31929-15/16C|Appeal No. 7184|Case No. 2025-05079|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05847
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 9, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Family Court: denied the father's motion to vacate the default judgment.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the father's request is denied)

TL;DR

  1. 1The father wants to cancel an old default judgment from 2016 regarding family matters.
  2. 2The Family Court denied his request, saying he didn't show valid reasons to change it.
  3. 3The Appellate Division this decision.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the Family Court correctly deny the father's motion to vacate the default judgment?

    Holding · Yes, the court found no valid reasons to allow the father to overturn the judgment.

Why it matters

This decision affects the father's legal standing in a family case and shows how courts view motions to vacate judgments.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Dad asks court to throw out old default judgment in family case.

  1. 1A dad says he never got the papers about a 2016 court order on family issues and wants it canceled.
  2. 2The court at the time decided against him, saying he had no good reason to negate the order.
  3. 3Now he's appealing to a higher court, arguing the lack of notice should void the original decision.

Should the court reverse the father's default judgment from 2016?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of B.B.

  • Appellee

    M.C.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of B.B. v M.C. 2026 NY Slip Op 05847 October 8, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of B.B., Petitioner-Respondent, v M.C., Respondent-Appellant. Decided and Entered: October 08, 2026 Docket No. U31929/15 U31929-15/16A U31929-15/16B U31929-15/16C|Appeal No. 7184|Case No. 2025-05079| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, JJ. Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hannah J. Sarokin of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Joel Serrano, Support Magistrate), entered on or about July 2, 2025, which denied the father's motion to vacate the default judgment entered on or about April 5, 2016, and for related relief, deemed an appeal from order, same court (Ashley Black, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2025, which denied the father's objections, and as so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The application by the appellant father's assigned counsel to withdraw is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). Based on a review of the record and the father's pro se supplemental brief, there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 8, 2026
View on CourtListener