From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 22, 1995
216 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 22, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.).


Petitioner commenced this proceeding against, among others, respondent Roy DD. (hereinafter respondent) alleging that he had sexually abused and neglected Michael CC. During the course of the fact-finding hearing, respondent admitted certain allegations contained in the petition and consented to entry of a dispositional order in this matter. Respondent now appeals contending that he is not a person legally responsible for Michael's care within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g).

Inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered upon consent ( see, e.g., Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 A.D.2d 1084, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652; Bahr v. Bahr, 105 A.D.2d 725; Tongue v. Tongue, 97 A.D.2d 638, affd 61 N.Y.2d 809), this appeal must be dismissed. Moreover, were we to address the merits, we would find that the petition set forth sufficient factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss and, further, that the admissions made by respondent at the fact-finding hearing established both that he was a person legally responsible for Michael's care and that he indeed sexually abused and neglected the child.

Mercure, J.P., White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 22, 1995
216 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Michael

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL CC., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected…

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

Date published: Jun 22, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 438

Citing Cases

Matter of John

Respondent raised no objection and stated that "if the therapist one day says it's okay to have contact, just…

In re Ian C.

The record reflects that appellant consented to the placement set forth in the dispositional order. Since no…