A New York appellate court has upheld a divorce ruling in the case of Zeledon v. Zeledon, affirming a judgment that denied the husband’s appeal to vacate a default judgment. The decision, issued on June 25, 2026, affects both parties in the divorce, particularly concerning the distribution of marital property and retirement benefits.
The case centers around Nicole A. Zeledon and O. Anthony Zeledon, who were married in 1992 and have four adult children. The divorce proceedings began in 2017 when Nicole filed for divorce. O. Anthony initially responded to the complaint and filed a counterclaim for divorce as well. However, he failed to appear for a nonjury trial regarding maintenance and equitable distribution, leading to a default judgment in favor of Nicole.
The Supreme Court of St. Lawrence County entered a default judgment that granted Nicole a divorce and awarded her a portion of O. Anthony's retirement benefits, calculated using the formula from a previous case, Majauskas v. Majauskas. O. Anthony later sought to vacate this default judgment, claiming he had a reasonable excuse for his absence due to health issues. However, the court denied his motion, stating that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims.
The case reached the Appellate Division after O. Anthony appealed the Supreme Court's decision. In a previous ruling, the appellate court had determined that O. Anthony had a reasonable excuse for missing the trial due to shingles and that he raised a potentially meritorious defense regarding the retirement benefits. This led to the case being sent back for a new trial concerning the equitable distribution of the husband's pension.
During the new proceedings, the parties attended pretrial conferences, but O. Anthony failed to appear at one of the scheduled meetings in May 2023. His absence was attributed to a lack of intention to participate, as he reportedly told Nicole he would not attend. Nicole's attorney moved for a default judgment, citing O. Anthony's ongoing noncompliance with court orders. The court granted this motion, officially holding O. Anthony in default.
In June 2025, O. Anthony, now represented by counsel, filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, claiming he had been unable to attend due to health issues. However, the court found his motion untimely, as he did not act until 18 months after the default was issued. The Supreme Court denied his request, stating that he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his delay.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Clark, Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Ryba, reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court ruled, "Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband's motion to vacate," emphasizing that O. Anthony was aware of the default judgment yet took an extended period before seeking to vacate it.
Furthermore, the court noted that while O. Anthony's medical issues could have constituted a reasonable excuse for missing the trial, he did not promptly contact the court or request an adjournment. The court stated that the husband's failure to act in a timely manner undermined his claims. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to court procedures and deadlines.
Looking ahead, this ruling sets a precedent regarding the importance of timely responses in divorce proceedings and the consequences of failing to comply with court orders. It underscores the need for individuals involved in legal disputes to be proactive in addressing their cases, particularly in matters as significant as divorce and property distribution.
The ruling affects not only the parties involved but also serves as a reminder to others in similar situations about the importance of legal representation and adherence to court schedules. The court's decision may discourage future attempts to delay proceedings without valid justification.
As for what’s next, O. Anthony has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are currently no related cases pending that would influence this ruling.