Ronald G. v. Kimberly K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ronald G. v. Kimberly K.

254 A.D.2d 843, 678 N.Y.S.2d 541

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 843 (Ronald G. v. Kimberly K.) 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

Ronald G. v. Kimberly K., 254 A.D.2d 843, 678 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for consolidation of appeals and other relief denied. Memorandum: The order entered August 8, 1997 is not a dispositional order that is appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and the appeals taken from the orders entered October 7, 1997 were deemed abandoned and dismissed on July 13, 1998 (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.12 [b]). Appellant may move to vacate the dismissal of those appeals upon submission of an affidavit demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in perfecting the appeals and an intent to perfect the appeals within a reasonable time and setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate merit to the appeals (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.13 [g]). Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Motion for consolidation of appeals and other relief denied. Memorandum: The order entered August 8, 1997 is not a dispositional order that is appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and the appeals taken from the orders entered October 7, 1997 were deemed abandoned and dismissed on July 13, 1998 (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.12 [b]). Appellant may move to vacate the dismissal of those appeals upon submission of an affidavit demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in perfecting the appeals and an intent to perfect the appeals within a reasonable time and setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate merit to the appeals (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.13 [g]). Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 843, 678 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-g-v-kimberly-k-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack