What did the appeals court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the Family Court's dismissal was entered after the petitioner defaulted, and rules bar appeals entered on default without first moving to vacate it.

Who is affected by this decision?

The petitioner, Jieying Pan, is affected because she cannot obtain appellate review of the dismissal unless she first moves to vacate her default.

What happens next for the petitioner?

The petitioner should move in the Family Court to vacate the default; if that motion is denied, she can then appeal the decision on that motion and, if necessary, the underlying dismissal.

Did the court rule on whether the parties had an intimate relationship?

No — the appellate court did not reach the merits of whether an intimate relationship existed because it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds related to the default.

Matter of Jieying Pan v. Yingying Chen

Docket 2025-03136

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyDismissed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Dismissed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02657
Docket: 2025-03136

Appeal from a Family Court order dismissing an Article 8 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction following the petitioner's default.

Summary

The Appellate Division dismissed an appeal from a Family Court order that granted the respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss a Family Court Act article 8 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court concluded the parties did not have an intimate relationship under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Because the dismissal order was entered after the petitioner defaulted and CPLR 5511 bars appeals entered on a default, the Second Department held the petitioner must first move to vacate the default before seeking review, so the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues Decided

Whether an appeal lies from a Family Court order entered upon the default of the appealing party.
Whether the Family Court properly dismissed the Article 8 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the parties did not have an intimate relationship under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e).

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on CPLR 5511, which prevents appeals from orders entered upon the default of the appealing party, and established precedent requires the defaulting party to move to vacate the default before seeking appellate review. Because the Family Court's dismissal was entered after the petitioner's default and the petitioner did not first move to vacate, the appellate court concluded it lacked the procedural basis to hear the appeal and therefore dismissed it.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 5511
Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)
Matter of Louissaint v Williams235 AD3d 873
Matter of Ramirez v Colon225 AD3d 704

Parties

Appellant: Jieying Pan
Respondent: Yingying Chen
Judge: Gregory L. Gliedman
Judge: Francesca E. Connolly
Judge: Linda Christopher
Judge: Barry E. Warhit
Judge: Donna-Marie E. Golia

Key Dates

petition filed: 2023-12-01
Family Court order dismissing petition: 2025-01-27
Appellate Division decision: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Move to vacate the default in Family Court
File a motion in the Family Court seeking to vacate the default and explain the reasons for the default and any meritorious defense to the petition.
2
Consult an attorney experienced in Family Court practice
Get advice on preparing and supporting a motion to vacate the default and, if necessary, on pursuing further appellate review.
3
If the vacatur is denied, timely appeal that denial
If the Family Court denies the motion to vacate, appeal from that order promptly and include the underlying challenge to the dismissal as appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the Family Court's dismissal was entered after the petitioner defaulted, and rules bar appeals entered on default without first moving to vacate it.
Who is affected by this decision?: The petitioner, Jieying Pan, is affected because she cannot obtain appellate review of the dismissal unless she first moves to vacate her default.
What happens next for the petitioner?: The petitioner should move in the Family Court to vacate the default; if that motion is denied, she can then appeal the decision on that motion and, if necessary, the underlying dismissal.
Did the court rule on whether the parties had an intimate relationship?: No — the appellate court did not reach the merits of whether an intimate relationship existed because it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds related to the default.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Jieying Pan v Yingying Chen - 2026 NY Slip Op 02657

Matter of Jieying Pan v Yingying Chen

2026 NY Slip Op 02657

April 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

In the Matter of Jieying Pan, appellant,

Yingying Chen, respondent.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 29, 2026

2025-03136, (Docket No. O-25214-23)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.

Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Thomas R. Villecco, New York, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gregory L. Gliedman, J.), dated January 27, 2025. The order granted the respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

In December 2023, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 against the respondent, who was her landlord and roommate. The respondent thereafter moved, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the parties did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). In an order dated January 27, 2025, the Family Court granted the unopposed motion and dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals.

No appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (
see
CPLR 5511). The proper procedure for obtaining review of an order entered on default is to move to vacate the default and, if necessary, appeal from the order deciding that motion (
see

Matter of Louissaint v Williams
, 235 AD3d 873, 873;
U.S. Bank N.A. v Tenenbaum
, 228 AD3d 701, 701).

Here, the appeal must be dismissed, as the order appealed from was entered upon the petitioner's default (
see
CPLR 5511;
Matter of Louissaint v Williams
, 235 AD3d at 873;
Matter of Ramirez v Colon
, 225 AD3d 704, 705).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph