Opinion
February 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joan Marie Durante, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim that his failure to appear at the inquest conducted on September 27, 1991 was due to threats he had received from a nonparty, and that his default was willful and should not be vacated (see, O'Donnell v. O'Donnell, 172 A.D.2d 654). Since no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of an aggrieved party (CPLR 5511; see, Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536), the review plaintiff seeks of the custody, support, equitable distribution and counsel fees provisions of the divorce judgment cannot be had. Plaintiff's bare claim of inability to comply with the child support order was not sufficient to justify a hearing on defendant's contempt motion (see, Bell v. Bell, 181 A.D.2d 978). Nor can this Court "amend and enlarge" the portion of the IAS Court's order pertaining to plaintiff's access to information about his son, or otherwise grant relief not sought before the IAS Court.
We have considered plaintiff's claim of bias on the part of the IAS Court requiring recusal, and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.