Matter of Suzanne QQ. v. Ben RR.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Suzanne QQ. v. Ben RR.

138 A.D.3d 1210, 27 N.Y.S.3d 899

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

DecidedApril 7, 2016

Docket521111

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 1210 (Matter of Suzanne QQ. v. Ben RR.) 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 Suzanne QQ. v. Ben RR., 138 A.D.3d 1210, 27 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered January 22, 2015, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, granted petitioner’s motion for, among other things, a temporary order of protection against respondent.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the unwed parents of a child (born in 2003). The mother has been the child’s primary caretaker since 2010, when the parties ended their relationship. In 2013, after the father allegedly engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior toward and conversations with the child resulting in the issuance of a temporary no-contact order of protection in favor of the child, the mother and father cross-petitioned for custody. In January 2014, Family Court issued a temporary order granting the father visitation with the child, provided that it be supervised by a therapist. Subsequently, the father visited the child’s school and attempted to take her into his custody, prompting the mother to file an emergency violation petition which sought, among other things, a new temporary order of protection requiring the father to stay away from the child except during therapeutic visitation. Family Court issued the requested temporary order of protection, and the father now appeals from that order.

The temporary order of protection at issue here is a nonfinal order, as it was made pending further proceedings in the parties’ underlying custody dispute. As such, the order is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Crooks v Smith, 260 AD2d 804, 804 [1999]; Firestone v Firestone, 44 AD2d 671, 672 [1974]). Inasmuch as petitioner did not seek permission to appeal, the matter is not properly before us (see Matter of Zimmer v Peno, 194 AD2d 928, 929 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 802 [1993]). Furthermore, in light of the procedural posture of this case and the temporary nature of the order, we decline to treat petitioner’s notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal (see Matter of Crooks v Smith, 260 AD2d at 804-805; Matter of Bridges v Hertica, 234 AD2d 862, 864 [1996]).

*1211 McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered January 22, 2015, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, granted petitioner’s motion for, among other things, a temporary order of protection against respondent.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the unwed parents of a child (born in 2003). The mother has been the child’s primary caretaker since 2010, when the parties ended their relationship. In 2013, after the father allegedly engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior toward and conversations with the child resulting in the issuance of a temporary no-contact order of protection in favor of the child, the mother and father cross-petitioned for custody. In January 2014, Family Court issued a temporary order granting the father visitation with the child, provided that it be supervised by a therapist. Subsequently, the father visited the child’s school and attempted to take her into his custody, prompting the mother to file an emergency violation petition which sought, among other things, a new temporary order of protection requiring the father to stay away from the child except during therapeutic visitation. Family Court issued the requested temporary order of protection, and the father now appeals from that order.

The temporary order of protection at issue here is a nonfinal order, as it was made pending further proceedings in the parties’ underlying custody dispute. As such, the order is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Crooks v Smith, 260 AD2d 804, 804 [1999]; Firestone v Firestone, 44 AD2d 671, 672 [1974]). Inasmuch as petitioner did not seek permission to appeal, the matter is not properly before us (see Matter of Zimmer v Peno, 194 AD2d 928, 929 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 802 [1993]). Furthermore, in light of the procedural posture of this case and the temporary nature of the order, we decline to treat petitioner’s notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal (see Matter of Crooks v Smith, 260 AD2d at 804-805; Matter of Bridges v Hertica, 234 AD2d 862, 864 [1996]).

*1211 McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 1210, 27 N.Y.S.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-suzanne-qq-v-ben-rr-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack