From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Bryant C. Hardnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 2011
85 A.D.3d 1501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 509976.

June 30, 2011.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (E. Walsh, J.), entered May 26, 2010, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation.

Kelly Egan, Albany, for appellant.

Charles W. Thomas, Troy, attorney for the children.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ.


The parties are the parents of two children (born in 1994 and 1996). In 2009, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking visitation with the children. The parties ultimately stipulated that petitioner shall have reasonable visitation with the children upon 24 hours notice to respondent, and Family Court entered an order to this effect. Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner's counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised. As no appeal lies from an order entered upon consent, the appeal must be dismissed and counsel's application to be relieved is thus rendered academic, and need not be addressed ( see Matter of Logan BB. [Michelle D.D.J., 82 AD3d 1373, 1374; Matter of Marshall v Haas, 74 AD3d 1593, 1593-1594; Matter of Michaela PP. [Derwood PP.], 67 AD3d 1083, 1084).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Bryant C. Hardnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 2011
85 A.D.3d 1501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Bryant C. Hardnett

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BRYANT C. HARDNETT, Appellant, v. GILLIAN JOHN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 30, 2011

Citations

85 A.D.3d 1501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5596
925 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Lowe v. Bonelli

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on consent and because the father has…

Lowe v. Bonelli

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on consent and because the father has…