Johnson v. Lee

89 A.D.3d 733, 931 N.Y.2d 901
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 733 (Johnson v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Lee, 89 A.D.3d 733, 931 N.Y.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Dellagatta v McGillicuddy, 31 AD3d 549, 550 [2006]; Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant, 21 AD3d 376 [2005]; Matter of Butterworth v Sperber, 6 AD3d 530 [2004]). However, the general rule with respect to opening defaults in civil actions “is not to be rigorously applied to cases involving child custody” (Gorsky v Gorsky, 148 AD2d 674, 674 [1989]; see Ito v Ito, 73 AD3d 983 [2010]; D’Alleva v D’Alleva, 127 AD2d 732, 734 [1987]).

Under the circumstances presented, and recognizing that the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings (see Matter of Lee v Morgan, 67 AD3d 681 [2009]; Matter of Pinto v Putnam County Support Collection Unit, 295 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]; Matter of Tauber v Tauber, 152 AD2d 674 [1989]), the Family Court should have granted the mother’s motion to [734]*734vacate the custody order entered upon her default in appearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the petition. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Paez v. Bambauer
2024 NY Slip Op 04205 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Orobona v. Cunningham
195 N.Y.S.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Hogan v. Smith
2022 NY Slip Op 03894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Williams v. Worthington
2021 NY Slip Op 03040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Justyn H. (Laverne H.)
2021 NY Slip Op 01045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Mondelus v. Emile
2020 NY Slip Op 2794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Nwabueze v. Okafor
2018 NY Slip Op 7729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Lemon v. Faison
2017 NY Slip Op 3953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Brice v. Lee
134 A.D.3d 1106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Cummings v. Rosoff
101 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Palmiotti v. Piscitelli
100 A.D.3d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 733, 931 N.Y.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lee-nyappdiv-2011.