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

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1148 (In re Justeen T.) 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 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

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Memorandum: This appeal from an order dated April 1, 2004 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by an order dated July 20, 2004 (see Matter of Erie D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]).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Memorandum: This appeal from an order dated April 1, 2004 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by an order dated July 20, 2004 (see Matter of Erie D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]).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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1148, 793 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-justeen-t-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack