From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castro v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 4, 1993

Appeal from the Family Court of Sullivan County (Meddaugh, J.).


By order entered October 29, 1992, Family Court awarded the parties joint custody of their four children, with petitioner having physical custody from Friday at 6:00 P.M. to Monday at 6:00 P.M. and respondent having physical custody for the balance of the week. In November 1992, petitioner sought to modify that order, alleging that respondent had told him she was leaving with her boyfriend and petitioner could keep the children. At a hearing conducted on January 11, 1993, petitioner advised Family Court that respondent's current location was unknown but that she had recently telephoned from California and was living in a van, moving around. This prompted the Law Guardian to state that "[t]his is not the first time [respondent] just walked out of the childrens' [sic] lives all of a sudden * * * this may be a case which may necessitate an Article 10 investigation for abandonment and I request the Court order an Article 10 investigation". Rather than grant the Law Guardian's application, Family Court modified the prior order so as to grant petitioner permanent physical custody of the children based upon respondent's absence from New York. The Law Guardian appeals.

Inasmuch as Family Court's denial of the Law Guardian's application was not embodied in a written order, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Tavolacci v Garges, 124 A.D.2d 733, 734; 1 Newman, New York Appellate Practice § 3.09 [1]). Further, a nondispositional order in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding may not be appealed to this Court as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]). Moreover, even if Family Court's determination had been incorporated into an appealable order and leave to appeal had been granted, we would affirm. In our view, Family Court acted well within its discretion in denying the application (see, Family Ct Act § 1034; Matter of Weber v Stony Brook Hosp., 60 N.Y.2d 208, cert denied 464 U.S. 1026; cf., Matter of Charlene H., 64 A.D.2d 900).

Yesawich Jr., J.P., Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Castro v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Castro v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:SALVATORE CASTRO, Petitioner, v. PATRICIA CASTRO, Respondent. STEVEN H…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 4, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 239

Citing Cases

Matter of Dean v. Dean

In his brief, respondent challenges Family Court's finding that respondent violated the terms of a June 1991…

Matter of Ashley W

In addition, we note that the Law Guardian is not aggrieved by the January 1996 order and in fact consented…