Matter of H.K. v. F.T.

2025 NY Slip Op 06388

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: Index No. V-06164/19; Appeal No. 5208; Case No. 2024-07944
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of H.K. v F.T. (2025 NY Slip Op 06388)

Matter of H.K. v F.T.

2025 NY Slip Op 06388

Decided on November 20, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 20, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.

Index No. V-06164/19|Appeal No. 5208|Case No. 2024-07944|

[*1]In the Matter of H.K., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

F. T., Respondent-Appellant.

Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Paloma A. Rivera of counsel), for respondent.

Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Jessica I. Bourbon, J.), entered on or about December 9, 2024, which dismissed petitioner mother's custody modification petition with respect to the parties' youngest child, unanimously dismissed, without costs, for lack of standing.

The father lacks standing to challenge the December 2024 order because the order neither denied any relief sought by him nor made a determination concerning his legal rights or direct interests (see CPLR 5511; see also Matter of Joseph A. v Laurie J., 124 AD3d 1090, 1090-1091 [3d Dept 2015]). The father never moved for relief in Family Court regarding custody. The fact that he is the children's father and a party to the proceedings does not, by itself, establish that he is aggrieved by the dismissal of the mother's petition (see Matter of Valenson v Kenyon, 80 AD3d 799, 799 [3d Dept 2011]). Furthermore, the December 2024 order did not grant the relief the mother was seeking (see Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 209 AD3d 1314, 1315 [4th Dept 2022]). Nor is the father aggrieved simply because he may disagree with the findings, rationale or the opinion supporting the order (see Moore v City of New York, 220 AD3d 767, 768 [1st Dept 2023]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 20, 2025