Barton v. Barton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barton v. Barton

13 A.D.3d 366, 785 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 366 (Barton v. Barton) 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

Barton v. Barton, 13 A.D.3d 366, 785 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In related visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, Theresa Barton appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), dated October 9, 2003, which, inter alia, denied her petition to modify a prior order of the same court, among other things, awarding her temporary supervised visitation with the subject children.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order of the Family Court (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and leave has not been granted (see Matter of Blake v Blake, 284 AD2d 455 [2001]).

The mother’s contention that the Family Court improperly denied her various petitions for an order of protection pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 is not before us, as the order appealed from did not address those petitions. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In related visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, Theresa Barton appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), dated October 9, 2003, which, inter alia, denied her petition to modify a prior order of the same court, among other things, awarding her temporary supervised visitation with the subject children.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order of the Family Court (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and leave has not been granted (see Matter of Blake v Blake, 284 AD2d 455 [2001]).

The mother’s contention that the Family Court improperly denied her various petitions for an order of protection pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 is not before us, as the order appealed from did not address those petitions. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 366, 785 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-barton-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack