From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rivera v. Cassas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 2000
275 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted May 23, 2000

August 21, 2000.

In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated November 25, 1991, and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 17, 1998, which dismissed the petition.

Marva Prescod, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Steven C. Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1085 and Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-c). The constitutional challenges to these statutes are unreviewable as the petitioner failed to give timely notice to allow the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in these proceedings (see, Executive Law § 71; CPLR 1012; Matter of McGee v. Korman, 70 N.Y.2d 225; Matter of Barrett v. Manton, 253 A.D.2d 503; Matter of Leslie's Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 129).


Summaries of

Matter of Rivera v. Cassas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 2000
275 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Rivera v. Cassas

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JOHN RIVERA, APPELLANT, v. MARLENE CASSAS, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Aug 21, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
713 N.Y.S.2d 689

Citing Cases

In Matter of Lee P. S.

The petitioner does not have standing to seek visitation with the biological child of the appellant, her…

In the Matter of Coleman v. Thomas

On appeal, the father argues that Family Court Act §§ 580-304 and 580-305 are unconstitutional, both on their…