Matter of Daniel B.

127 A.D.3d 1178, 5 N.Y.S.3d 911
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 2015
Docket2013-04531
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1178 (Matter of Daniel B.) 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
Matter of Daniel B., 127 A.D.3d 1178, 5 N.Y.S.3d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Fran L. Lubow, J.), dated March 15, 2013. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon Daniel B.’s consent, directed his placement in a nonsecure detention facility with the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of up to 18 months, upon adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent.

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 10, 2014, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

*1179 Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the order of disposition on the ground that no appeal lies from an order entered upon the consent of the appealing party is granted; and it is further,

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

The only issue raised on the appeal involves the disposition in this matter. Since the order of disposition was entered on consent, the appellant is not aggrieved thereby (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jayson V., 117 AD3d 960 [2014]; Matter of Cristian C., 104 AD3d 941, 942 [2013]; Matter of Kemar G., 72 AD3d 965, 966 [2010]).

Balkin, J.P, Roman, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Carr v. Haas
2018 NY Slip Op 5244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 1178, 5 N.Y.S.3d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-daniel-b-nyappdiv-2015.