In re Carey K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carey K.

265 A.D.2d 617, 696 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 617 (In re Carey K.) 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

In re Carey K., 265 A.D.2d 617, 696 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), entered July 23, 1998, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, upon consent, suspended the proceeding for a period of one year.

Petitioner filed a neglect petition against respondent. Upon consent of the parties, Family Court adjourned the proceeding in contemplation of dismissal for a period of one year, awarded temporary custody of Carey K. to her father for a period of one year and directed respondent to comply with various terms and conditions. On appeal, counsel for respondent seeks to be relieved of her assignment on the ground that no nonfrivolous appealable issues exist. Given that the order was entered upon [618]*618respondent’s consent, the matter is not appealable (see, Matter of Andresha G., 251 AD2d 1005). Furthermore, there has been no determination on the merits given the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see, Matter of Marie B., 62 NY2d 352, 359). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), entered July 23, 1998, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, upon consent, suspended the proceeding for a period of one year.

Petitioner filed a neglect petition against respondent. Upon consent of the parties, Family Court adjourned the proceeding in contemplation of dismissal for a period of one year, awarded temporary custody of Carey K. to her father for a period of one year and directed respondent to comply with various terms and conditions. On appeal, counsel for respondent seeks to be relieved of her assignment on the ground that no nonfrivolous appealable issues exist. Given that the order was entered upon [618]*618respondent’s consent, the matter is not appealable (see, Matter of Andresha G., 251 AD2d 1005). Furthermore, there has been no determination on the merits given the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see, Matter of Marie B., 62 NY2d 352, 359). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 617, 696 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carey-k-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack