Opinion
9246 9247
05-09-2019
In re GEORGE L., Petitioner–Respondent, v. KAREN L., Respondent–Appellant. In re Karen L., Petitioner–Appellant, v. George L., Respondent–Respondent.
Daniel R. Katz, New York, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for the Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the children.
Daniel R. Katz, New York, for appellant.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for the Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the children.
Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Appeals from orders, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Referee), entered on or about February 8, 2018, which dismissed, without prejudice, appellant mother's petition for custody, and, after an inquest, granted the father's petition, awarding him custody of the subject children, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from nonappealable orders.
No appeal lies from either of the February 8, 2018 orders, because both were entered on default, and the petitioner-mother made no motion to vacate either default ( CPLR 5511 ; see e.g. Matter of Daleena T. [Wanda W. ], 145 A.D.3d 628, 629, 42 N.Y.S.3d 824 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Even if the mother had a meritorious challenge to the Referee's jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in the absence of her consent, she was required her to move to vacate her default prior to raising that challenge (see Matter of Newmann–Werth v. Werth, 165 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 84 N.Y.S.3d 382 [2d Dept. 2018] ).