What did the appeals court decide?

The appeals court reversed the Family Court's denial of the motion to vacate and vacated the default order of protection because the respondent was denied the opportunity to be heard when his counsel was removed and the court refused alternatives.

Who is affected by this decision?

The parties to the family court proceeding — the respondent (Jonathan U.), the petitioner (April V.), and the children for whom protection was sought — are affected because the order of protection is vacated and further proceedings are required.

What happens next in the case?

The matter is sent back to Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision, where the court must allow the respondent an opportunity to be heard.

Does this mean the respondent automatically wins?

No. Vacating the default order removes the judgment entered by default, but the underlying protection claims remain and may be litigated again in Family Court.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Potentially, a party could seek further review to a higher court, but the appellate order is the current controlling decision directing remittal to Family Court.

Matter of April V. v. Jonathan U.

Docket CV-25-0403

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyReversed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Reversed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02702
Docket: CV-25-0403

Appeal from denial of a motion to vacate a default order of protection entered in a Family Ct Act article 8 proceeding

Summary

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's denial of a motion to vacate an order of protection entered by default against Jonathan U. The Family Court had removed respondent's counsel from the courtroom when Jonathan failed to appear for an in-person hearing and declined available alternatives (such as allowing a virtual appearance). The appellate court held that this conduct deprived respondent of the fundamental right to be heard, so the default order of protection was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issues Decided

Whether Family Court's removal of respondent's counsel and refusal to permit alternative means for respondent to participate denied respondent due process and the opportunity to be heard.
Whether the default order of protection should be vacated where the respondent's counsel was dismissed from the courtroom despite being counsel of record and prepared to proceed.

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that while vacating a default typically requires a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense, those requirements do not apply when a party's fundamental right to be heard is violated. Here, counsel for respondent attended and offered an explanation and a virtual alternative for respondent's absence, but the court removed counsel from the courtroom without relieving them as counsel of record and refused available options to proceed. That conduct deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard, so the default order could not stand.

Authorities Cited

Matter of Hohenforst v DeMagistris44 AD3d 1114 (3d Dept 2007)
Matter of King v King167 AD3d 1272 (3d Dept 2018)
CPLR 321

Parties

Respondent: April V.
Appellant: Jonathan U.
Attorney: James P. Youngs
Attorney: Lisa K. Miller
Attorney: Robert C. Kilmer
Judge: Mark Young
Judge: Aarons, J.

Key Dates

Proceeding commenced: 2023-11-01
In-person hearing (respondent failed to appear): 2024-04-01
Family Court corrected order entered: 2025-02-18
Appellate decision entered: 2026-04-30
Appellate calendar date: 2026-02-10

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare for remanded proceedings
Counsel for respondent should coordinate with Family Court to ensure the respondent can meaningfully participate in the new proceedings and seek any reasonable accommodations (virtual appearance) in advance.
2
File necessary applications in Family Court
If appropriate, file motions or notices identifying availability and proposing alternative means of participation, and request confirmation that counsel will remain of record and permitted to represent the respondent.
3
Review and gather evidence
Both parties should assemble testimony, documents, and witnesses relevant to the protection petition so the issues can be resolved on the merits at the new hearing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The appeals court reversed the Family Court's denial of the motion to vacate and vacated the default order of protection because the respondent was denied the opportunity to be heard when his counsel was removed and the court refused alternatives.
Who is affected by this decision?: The parties to the family court proceeding — the respondent (Jonathan U.), the petitioner (April V.), and the children for whom protection was sought — are affected because the order of protection is vacated and further proceedings are required.
What happens next in the case?: The matter is sent back to Family Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision, where the court must allow the respondent an opportunity to be heard.
Does this mean the respondent automatically wins?: No. Vacating the default order removes the judgment entered by default, but the underlying protection claims remain and may be litigated again in Family Court.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Potentially, a party could seek further review to a higher court, but the appellate order is the current controlling decision directing remittal to Family Court.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of April V. v Jonathan U. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02702

Matter of April V. v Jonathan U.

2026 NY Slip Op 02702

April 30, 2026

Appellate Division, Third Department

In the Matter of April V., Respondent,

Jonathan U., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Decided and Entered:April 30, 2026

CV-25-0403

Calendar Date: February 10, 2026

Before: Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Mcshan And Corcoran, JJ.

James P. Youngs, Syracuse, for appellant.

Lisa K. Miller, McGraw, for respondent.

Robert C. Kilmer, Binghamton, attorney for the children.

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a corrected order of the Family Court of Broome County (Mark Young, J.), entered February 18, 2025, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8, denied respondent's motion to vacate an order of protection.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent's counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent's counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in "hiding" in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent's request by again directing respondent's counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner's children. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued an order of protection on default against respondent in favor of petitioner and her children. Respondent thereafter moved to vacate the order of protection, which motion the court denied. From that denial, respondent appeals. We reverse.

Typically, "[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim" (
Matter of Hohenforst v DeMagistris
, 44 AD3d 1114, 1116 [3d Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "No such showing is required, however, where a party's fundamental due process rights have been denied" (
Matter of King v King
, 167 AD3d 1272, 1273 [3d Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In this case, respondent's counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent's nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence (
compare

Matter of Gabriel VV. [Joni TT.]
, 236 AD3d 1161, 1161-1162 [3d Dept 2025];
Matter of Winter II. [Kerriann II.]
, 227 AD3d 1142, 1144 [3d Dept 2024],
lv denied
42 NY3d 903 [2024]). Respondent's counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent's counsel, and thus respondent's attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (
see
CPLR 321 [b];
see generally

Matter of Richard TT. [Kara VV.]
, 223 AD3d 1070, 1071 [3d Dept 2024],
appeal dismissed
41 NY3d 989 [2024]). The court's atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court's choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent's absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (
see
CPLR 321 [a];
see generally

Matter of Thomson v Battle
, 99 AD3d 804, 806-807 [2d Dept 2012];
Matter of Middlemiss
v Pratt
, 86 AD3d 658, 659 [3d Dept 2011]).

Finally, we decline respondent's request to direct Family Court to permit respondent to appear virtually for any proceedings that may be required upon remittal, as we leave such a determination to Family Court's discretion. Respondent's remaining contentions are academic.

Clark, J.P., Pritzker, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the corrected order is reversed, on the law, without costs; order of protection vacated; and matter remitted to the Family Court of Broome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.