SUSAN E. GRAY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

SHARON P. O'HANLON, MANLIUS, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DONNA M. CATHY, WATERLOO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner father sole legal custody and primary physical placement of their biological children and guardianship of the mother's biological daughter, with supervised visitation to the mother. We agree with the Attorney for the Children that the mother's notice of appeal was not timely. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1113, an appeal from a Family Court order "must be taken no later than thirty days after the service by a party or the child's attorney upon the appellant of any order from which the appeal is taken, thirty days from receipt of the order by the appellant in court or thirty-five days from the mailing of the order to the appellant by the clerk of the court, whichever is earliest." "When service of the order is made by the court, the time to take an appeal shall not commence unless the order contains [a statutorily required] statement and there is an official notation in the court record as to the date and the manner of service of the order" (id .).

Here, Family Court's order complied with the statutory requirements of the Family Court Act. Further, the court served its order on the parties and counsel in court on September 24, 2018, and the notice of appeal was not filed until November 2, 2018. Consequently, the mother's appeal is untimely (see Matter of Miller v. Mace , 74 A.D.3d 1442, 1443, 903 N.Y.S.2d 571 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 3430865 [2010] ; see generally Matter of Arkadian S. [Crystal S.] , 130 A.D.3d 1457, 1458, 13 N.Y.S.3d 746 [4th Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 995, 19 N.Y.S.3d 216, 41 N.E.3d 73 [2015] ), and we therefore must dismiss it because we "lack jurisdiction to consider her appeal" ( Miller , 74 A.D.3d at 1444, 903 N.Y.S.2d 571 ).