Opinion
04-07-2016
In the Matter of SUZANNE QQ., Respondent, v. BEN RR., Appellant.
Ben RR., Shady, appellant pro se. Deborah Schneer, Kingston, for respondent. Valerie Lyn Wacks, Olivebridge, attorney for the child.
Ben RR., Shady, appellant pro se.
Deborah Schneer, Kingston, for respondent.
Valerie Lyn Wacks, Olivebridge, attorney for the child.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.
ROSE, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered January 22, 2015, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6, granted petitioner's motion for, among other things, a temporary order of protection against respondent.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the unwed parents of a child (born in 2003). The mother has been the child's primary caretaker since 2010, when the parties ended their relationship. In 2013, after the father allegedly engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior toward and conversations with the child resulting in the issuance of a temporary no-contact order of protection in favor of the child, the mother and father cross-petitioned for custody. In January 2014, Family Court issued a temporary order granting the father visitation with the child, provided that it be supervised by a therapist. Subsequently, the father visited the child's school and attempted to take her into his custody, prompting the mother to file an emergency violation petition which sought, among other things, a new temporary order of protection requiring the father to stay away from the child except during therapeutic visitation. Family Court issued the requested temporary order of protection, and the father now appeals from that order.
The temporary order of protection at issue here is a nonfinal order, as it was made pending further proceedings in the parties' underlying custody dispute. As such, the order is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct. Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Crooks v. Smith, 260 A.D.2d 804, 804, 687 N.Y.S.2d 308 [1999] ; Firestone v. Firestone, 44 A.D.2d 671, 672, 354 N.Y.S.2d 645 [1974] ). Inasmuch as petitioner did not seek permission to appeal, the matter is not properly before us (see Matter of Zimmer v. Peno, 194 A.D.2d 928, 929, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1013 [1993], lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 802, 604 N.Y.S.2d 559, 624 N.E.2d 697 [1993] ). Furthermore, in light of the procedural posture of this case and the temporary nature of the order, we decline to treat petitioner's notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal (see Matter of Crooks v. Smith, 260 A.D.2d at 804–805, 687 N.Y.S.2d 308 ; Matter of Bridges v. Hertica, 234 A.D.2d 862, 864, 651 N.Y.S.2d 257 [1996] ). ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ., concur.