Opinion
30 CAF 21-01569
02-10-2023
In the Matter of John B. BRYANT and Barbara A. Bryant, Petitioners-Respondents, v. Talia O. KEPLER and Corey J. Kepler, Respondents-Appellants.
KAMAN BERLOVE LLP, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. MICHAEL D. SCHMITT, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS. MAUREEN N. POLEN, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
KAMAN BERLOVE LLP, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
MICHAEL D. SCHMITT, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS.
MAUREEN N. POLEN, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondents appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application seeking to register a child custody determination entered by a court in Florida and also determined that New York lacks jurisdiction over the parties’ custody dispute because Florida is the subject child's home state (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] ).
We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because it was not taken from an order of disposition and, therefore, is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 ; see generally Matter of Cheyenne C. [James M.] , 185 A.D.3d 1517, 1518, 126 N.Y.S.3d 292 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 917, 133 N.Y.S.3d 545, 546, 158 N.E.3d 562, 563 [2020]; Matter of James L. [appeal No. 2], 74 A.D.3d 1775, 1775, 902 N.Y.S.2d 487 [4th Dept. 2010] ). Specifically, the order on appeal expressly reserves to respondents the right to renew their request for a hearing pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 77-d challenging petitioners’ application to register the order entered in Florida. Consequently, the order is not dispositional—i.e., final (see Ocasio v. Ocasio , 49 A.D.2d 801, 801, 373 N.Y.S.2d 702 [4th Dept. 1975], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.2d 921, 378 N.Y.S.2d 390, 340 N.E.2d 750 [1975] )—inasmuch as it "did not dispose of all the factual and legal issues raised in this action" ( Abasciano v. Dandrea , 83 A.D.3d 1542, 1544, 924 N.Y.S.2d 696 [4th Dept. 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Town of Coeymans v. Malphrus , 252 A.D.2d 874, 875, 676 N.Y.S.2d 347 [3d Dept. 1998] ).