In re Justeen T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Justeen T.

17 A.D.3d 1148, 793 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2005·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), dated April 1, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order adjudicated the child neglected and ordered that respondent be placed under petitioner’s supervision for a period of 12 months upon the terms and conditions set forth in a service plan.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: This appeal from an order dated April 1, 2004 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by an order dated July 20, 2004 (see Matter of Erie D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). We decline to exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the subsequent order (see CPLR 5520 [c]; cf. Ranter v Pieri, 11 AD3d 912 [2004]) because the subsequent order was entered upon respondent’s consent, and thus no appeal lies from that order (see Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 AD2d 1084 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 652 [1993]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), dated April 1, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order adjudicated the child neglected and ordered that respondent be placed under petitioner’s supervision for a period of 12 months upon the terms and conditions set forth in a service plan.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: This appeal from an order dated April 1, 2004 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by an order dated July 20, 2004 (see Matter of Erie D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). We decline to exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the subsequent order (see CPLR 5520 [c]; cf. Ranter v Pieri, 11 AD3d 912 [2004]) because the subsequent order was entered upon respondent’s consent, and thus no appeal lies from that order (see Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 AD2d 1084 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 652 [1993]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

In re Justeen T., 17 A.D.3d 1148, 793 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 1148 (In re Justeen T.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related