Opinion
842 CAF 22-01712
11-17-2023
In the Matter of William J. GEER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joanne COLLAZO, Respondent-Respondent.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. WESLEY CLARK & PESHKIN, ROCHESTER (CYNTHIA J. CARROLL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. SARAH L. FIFIELD, FAIRPORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
WESLEY CLARK & PESHKIN, ROCHESTER (CYNTHIA J. CARROLL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
SARAH L. FIFIELD, FAIRPORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, MONTOUR, GREENWOOD, AND NOWAK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from a decision that denied his petition seeking, inter alia, visitation with the subject child following his release from prison. The father had been imprisoned after pleading guilty to kidnapping in the second degree as a result of his role in the kidnapping of the child's mother.
Initially, although no appeal lies from a mere decision (see Kuhn v. Kuhn , 129 A.D.2d 967, 967, 514 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept. 1987] ), we agree with the father that the paper appealed from "meets the essential requirements of an order" ( Nicol v. Nicol , 179 A.D.3d 1472, 1473, 118 N.Y.S.3d 833 [4th Dept. 2020] ) inasmuch as it was filed "with the Court Clerk and ... [it] resolved the [proceeding] and advised the father that he had a right to appeal" ( Matter of Louka v. Shehatou , 67 A.D.3d 1476, 1476, 888 N.Y.S.2d 841 [4th Dept. 2009] ). We therefore treat it as an order.
Contrary to the father's contention, however, Family Court's determination to deny the father's petition has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see generally Matter of Thurarajah v. Manjula , 184 A.D.3d 1130, 1131, 123 N.Y.S.3d 877 [4th Dept. 2020]; Matter of Grayson v. Lopez , 178 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 116 N.Y.S.3d 821 [4th Dept. 2019] ; Matter of Carroll v. Carroll , 125 A.D.3d 1485, 1487, 3 N.Y.S.3d 855 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 907, 2015 WL 2236985 [2015] ).