Wood v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wood v. Brown

26 A.D.3d 390, 812 N.Y.S.2d 564

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 390 (Wood v. Brown) 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

Wood v. Brown, 26 A.D.3d 390, 812 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated December 16, 2004, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated December 15, 2004, entered on his consent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly refused to vacate the December 15, 2004, order of protection. The father’s voluntary appearance in court on the return date of the mother’s petition, his failure to raise an objection at that time to the manner of service, his active participation in the hearing, and his consent to the order of protection, all clearly precluded his subsequent claim that he had not been served with notice of the mother’s petition (see Family Ct Act § 167; see also Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [2004]; Matter of Fallon v Fallon, 4 AD3d 426, 427 [2004]; Matter of Brozzo v Brozzo, 192 AD2d 878, 879-880 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated December 16, 2004, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated December 15, 2004, entered on his consent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly refused to vacate the December 15, 2004, order of protection. The father’s voluntary appearance in court on the return date of the mother’s petition, his failure to raise an objection at that time to the manner of service, his active participation in the hearing, and his consent to the order of protection, all clearly precluded his subsequent claim that he had not been served with notice of the mother’s petition (see Family Ct Act § 167; see also Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 757 [2004]; Matter of Fallon v Fallon, 4 AD3d 426, 427 [2004]; Matter of Brozzo v Brozzo, 192 AD2d 878, 879-880 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 390, 812 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-brown-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack