Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Cummings v. Rosoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 5, 2012

101 A.D.3d 713; 955 N.Y.2d 193

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Paez v. Bambauer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Hogan v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
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 Orobona v. Cunningham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Patience T. (Christopher T.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Genzone v. Genzone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
STRUMPF, MEGAN M. v. AVERY, JR., STEVEN A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Wong v. Liu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

*714“A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense” (Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C., 79 AD3d 745, 745 [2010]; see CPLR 5015 [a]; Matter of Mongitore v Linz, 95 AD3d 1130 [2012]; Matter of Jurow v Cahill, 56 AD3d 559, 559-560 [2008]). However, “the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings,” and thus the “general rule with respect to opening defaults in civil actions is not to be rigorously applied to cases involving child custody” (Matter of Johnson v Lee, 89 AD3d 733, 733 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lueders v Boma-Lueders, 85 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2011]; Ito v Ito, 73 AD3d 983 [2010]).

Under the particular circumstances presented here, and in light of the policy favoring resolutions on the merits in child custody proceedings, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate his default. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.