From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ras v. Rupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2002
295 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CAF 01-00892

June 14, 2002.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Nenno, J.), entered January 31, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the parties mutual orders of protection.

JENNIFER L. DE CARLI, ROCHESTER (AMY SCHWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum:

The order of Family Court provides that the matter was being resolved "upon the consent of the parties." No appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the parties, and thus the appeal must be dismissed ( see Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 A.D.2d 1084, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652; see also Matter of Michelle F., 280 A.D.2d 969; Matter of Jamilla S., 259 A.D.2d 982). Although respondent contends that she did not consent to the order or, in the alternative, that she could not consent to the order because it was issued in violation of the requirements set forth in Family Ct Act § 154-c, her remedy with respect to each contention is to move in Family Court to vacate the order ( see Matter of Andresha G., 251 A.D.2d 1005; see also Matter of Carmella J., 254 A.D.2d 70).


Summaries of

Ras v. Rupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2002
295 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Ras v. Rupp

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF NORMAN A. RAS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. AMY L. RAS RUPP…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 760

Citing Cases

Daniel W. v. Kimberly W.

The mother resumed these objections at the appearance held on April 15, 2014, indicating that she did not…

Reilly v. Reilly

Where, as here, an order recites that it is made on consent, it is not appealable ( see Matter of Gittens v…