Matter of Michael C. v. Aileen A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Michael C. v. Aileen A.

2017 NY Slip Op 301, 146 A.D.3d 879, 45 N.Y.S.3d 178

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

Docket2015-10966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 301 (Matter of Michael C. v. Aileen A.) 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 Michael C. v. Aileen A., 2017 NY Slip Op 301, 146 A.D.3d 879, 45 N.Y.S.3d 178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from a corrected order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Jo Ann Friia, J.), dated November 25, 2015. The corrected order, upon the mother’s consent, inter alia, found that she wilfully violated an order of protection dated December 18, 2014.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from an order entered October 28, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015, which, among other things, found that the mother wil-fully violated an order of protection, must be dismissed because the record reflects that the mother consented to the entry of the order. “[N]o appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party” (Matter of Lemar H., 52 AD3d 602, 603 [2008]; see Matter of Bobby J.C. [Faith C.], 124 AD3d *880 648, 648 [2015]; Matter of Chloe P. Mc. [Lajohn M.], 122 AD3d 856, 856 [2014]; Matter of Jerome Marcel T, 28 AD3d 780, 781 [2006]), since a party who consents to an order is not aggrieved thereby (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Martha S. [Linda M.S.], 26 NY3d 941, 941 [2015]; Matter of Ma’Kyle L. [Myriam B.— Egbert LJ, 103 AD3d 802, 802 [2013]).

Moreover, the mother’s argument that the Family Court erred in finding that she neglected the child is not properly before this Court, since she did not appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition, which found that she neglected the child (see CPLR 5515 [1]; Matter of Dayannie I.M. [Roger I.M.], 138 AD3d 747, 750 [2016]; Matter of Idhailia P. [Philip S.P.], 95 AD3d 1333, 1335 [2012]).

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from a corrected order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Jo Ann Friia, J.), dated November 25, 2015. The corrected order, upon the mother’s consent, inter alia, found that she wilfully violated an order of protection dated December 18, 2014.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from an order entered October 28, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the corrected order dated November 25, 2015, which, among other things, found that the mother wil-fully violated an order of protection, must be dismissed because the record reflects that the mother consented to the entry of the order. “[N]o appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party” (Matter of Lemar H., 52 AD3d 602, 603 [2008]; see Matter of Bobby J.C. [Faith C.], 124 AD3d *880 648, 648 [2015]; Matter of Chloe P. Mc. [Lajohn M.], 122 AD3d 856, 856 [2014]; Matter of Jerome Marcel T, 28 AD3d 780, 781 [2006]), since a party who consents to an order is not aggrieved thereby (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Martha S. [Linda M.S.], 26 NY3d 941, 941 [2015]; Matter of Ma’Kyle L. [Myriam B.— Egbert LJ, 103 AD3d 802, 802 [2013]).

Moreover, the mother’s argument that the Family Court erred in finding that she neglected the child is not properly before this Court, since she did not appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition, which found that she neglected the child (see CPLR 5515 [1]; Matter of Dayannie I.M. [Roger I.M.], 138 AD3d 747, 750 [2016]; Matter of Idhailia P. [Philip S.P.], 95 AD3d 1333, 1335 [2012]).

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 301, 146 A.D.3d 879, 45 N.Y.S.3d 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-michael-c-v-aileen-a-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack