Opinion
03-19-2024
In the Matter of SCHADRACIA L., Petitioner–Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES et al., Respondent–Respondent, Tryphose L., Respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kevin Osowski of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the child.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kevin Osowski of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the child.
Kern, J.P., Moulton, Gesmer, Mendez, Michael, JJ.
Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Anna R. Lewis, J.), entered on or about November 16, 2022, which granted the oral application of respondents Administration for Children’s Services and of the attorney for the subject child to dismiss the custody petition with prejudice, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
After the child turned 18, the court lacked jurisdiction under article 6 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Mondschein v. Mondschein, 195 A.D.3d 1025, 1026-1027, 151 N.Y.S.3d 134 [2d Dept. 2021]; Family Court Act §§ 119[c], 651[b]). The order granting an oral application to dismiss the proceeding did not decide a motion made on notice, and therefore is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664 [2003]; Matter of Edwin P. v. Jenny L.B., 193 A.D.3d 463, 141 N.Y.S.3d 708 [1st Dept. 2021]). Furthermore, a guardianship proceeding concerning the now-adult child was pending in another court. Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the custody petition with prejudice.
We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.