Rouleau v. La PointeRouleau v. La Pointe
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered August 11, 2003 in Ulster County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.
The parties never married, but cohabited for many years and had three children together. In 1991, the parties entered into an
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover for defendant’s breach of the stipulated agreement. After defendant failed to answer the complaint, Supreme Court granted plaintiff a default judgment and held an inquest, at which defendant appeared with counsel and participated. Following the inquest, in October 1999, the court issued a decision and order assessing damages for child support, delinquent mortgage payments, and unpaid medical expenses, but found the consulting agreement unenforceable. The court also ordered plaintiff to submit a bill of costs within 15 days of receiving the order and to file the judgment within 15 days thereafter. In July 2000, plaintiff submitted the bill of costs and the judgment with notice of settlement to defendant, which was signed by the court without objection in September 2000 but not entered until August 2003. Defendant appeals.
Initially, based on defendant’s failure to object to the signing of the judgment in 2000, he has failed to preserve for appeal his argument that Supreme Court should not have signed the judgment because it was submitted after the 30 days permitted in the order and after the 60-day period prescribed by 22 NYCRR 202.48 (see McCue v McCue,
Defendant contends that his obligations on the mortgage and medical bills were discharged in bankruptcy. Discharge in bankruptcy is an affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the answer or a preanswer motion (see CPLR 3018 [b]; 3211 [a] [5]; [e]). Defendant waived this defense by defaulting and failing to move to vacate the default (see Apex Two v Terwilliger,
Defendant further argues that he should have received a credit towards child support payments for the money he paid
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.