In “CPLR 5511: Aggrievement Following A Successful Child Custody Award”, NYLJ, Sept. 16, 2015, this column addressed case law holding that, although a child’s name does not appear in the caption, that child is very much aggrieved by an improvident custody order, as child custody is a matter of public policy, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Benjamin, 1 AD3d 39, 44 [1st Dept 2003]; Matter of Gartmond v. Conway, 40 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2d Dept 2007]. Parody of reasoning dictates that children are similarly aggrieved by an inadequate support award because that, too, is a matter of fundamental public policy. Roe v. Doe, 29 N.Y.2d 188 (1971); Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 69 A.D.3d 24 (1st Dep’t 2009). However, must the child, i.e., the attorney for the child, initiate the appellate process in order to correct the inadequate award or can the Appellate Division remedy it by way of another procedural tool?

Enter Johnson v. Johnson, 172 A.D.3d 1654 [3d Dept 2019], which remedied such a concern even though the child—the attorney for the child—did not appeal from the order, discussed below. First, an understanding of aggrievement, CPLR 551, as it relates to nonparties and to nonappealing parties is instructive.

The Three Jurisdictional Predicates Needed To Appeal