Matter of Walter S. v. Cynthia H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Walter S. v. Cynthia H.

2017 NY Slip Op 7, 146 A.D.3d 408, 45 N.Y.S.3d 27, 2017 WL 21683

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2017

Docket2594

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7 (Matter of Walter S. v. Cynthia H.) 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 Walter S. v. Cynthia H., 2017 NY Slip Op 7, 146 A.D.3d 408, 45 N.Y.S.3d 27, 2017 WL 21683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about December 7, 2015, which transferred the petition to modify visitation to Suffolk County Family Court, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The order transferring the petition to Suffolk County is not a final order of disposition and is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Lydia D. v Thomas B., 99 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the father did not object to the transfer of the petition, and his claim that it was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion is therefore unpreserved (see e.g. Roberta R v Vanessa J.P., 140 AD3d 457, 458 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). Furthermore, since the petition has since been dismissed, the issue is academic.

Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in transferring the petition to Suffolk County, where the mother’s family offense petition was pending, in order to accommodate the child’s school schedule and where the mother and the child reside (see e.g. Greenblum v Greenblum, 136 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2016]). The father failed to demonstrate that the transfer was a hardship to him due to his health.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about December 7, 2015, which transferred the petition to modify visitation to Suffolk County Family Court, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The order transferring the petition to Suffolk County is not a final order of disposition and is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Lydia D. v Thomas B., 99 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the father did not object to the transfer of the petition, and his claim that it was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion is therefore unpreserved (see e.g. Roberta R v Vanessa J.P., 140 AD3d 457, 458 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). Furthermore, since the petition has since been dismissed, the issue is academic.

Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in transferring the petition to Suffolk County, where the mother’s family offense petition was pending, in order to accommodate the child’s school schedule and where the mother and the child reside (see e.g. Greenblum v Greenblum, 136 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2016]). The father failed to demonstrate that the transfer was a hardship to him due to his health.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7, 146 A.D.3d 408, 45 N.Y.S.3d 27, 2017 WL 21683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-walter-s-v-cynthia-h-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack