Johnson v. Lee
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Hogan v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Paez v. Bambauer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Orobona v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Williams v. Worthington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Lemon v. Faison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Brice v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matter of Justyn H. (Laverne H.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Mondelus v. Emile (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Nwabueze v. Okafor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Palmiotti v. Piscitelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Palmiotti v. Piscitelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cummings v. Rosoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cummings v. Rosoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.