Brouwer v. Pacicca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brouwer v. Pacicca

291 A.D.2d 448, 737 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1658

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 11, 2002·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), entered January 17, 2001, on consent.

[449] Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, an order indicates on its face that it was made on consent, it is not appealable (see, Matter of Garcia v Carballo, 277 AD2d 453; Matter of Chiakpo v Obi, 255 AD2d 579; Matter of Hartnett v Hartnett, 242 AD2d 535; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626; CPLR 5511). To the extent that the appellant attacks the propriety of certain portions of the order on the ground that they were not made on his consent, his remedy is to move in the Family Court to vacate or resettle the order (see, Nayman v Remsen Apts., 125 AD2d 378; Bacon v Lowman, 8 App Div 612). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), entered January 17, 2001, on consent.

[449] Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, an order indicates on its face that it was made on consent, it is not appealable (see, Matter of Garcia v Carballo, 277 AD2d 453; Matter of Chiakpo v Obi, 255 AD2d 579; Matter of Hartnett v Hartnett, 242 AD2d 535; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626; CPLR 5511). To the extent that the appellant attacks the propriety of certain portions of the order on the ground that they were not made on his consent, his remedy is to move in the Family Court to vacate or resettle the order (see, Nayman v Remsen Apts., 125 AD2d 378; Bacon v Lowman, 8 App Div 612). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Brouwer v. Pacicca, 291 A.D.2d 448, 737 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

291 A.D.2d 448 (Brouwer v. Pacicca) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related