JERRI v. JARRETT (2002)

 Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Ct Act seeking an order of protection against respondent.   We note at the outset that, contrary to respondent's contention, Family Court had jurisdiction over the parties despite respondent's denial of paternity with respect to petitioner's daughter.   Here, petitioner alleged that respondent is the father of her daughter and she had commenced a paternity proceeding that was pending at the time of this proceeding (see Matter of Lydia B. v. Pedro G., 152 Misc.2d 272, 576 N.Y.S.2d 178;  see generally Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [d];  § 822[a] ).  “Nowhere in [Family Ct Act § 812(1) ] is there a requirement that the respondent be established as the adjudicated father” (Lydia B., 152 Misc.2d at 273, 576 N.Y.S.2d 178).

 Nevertheless, we further conclude that this appeal must be dismissed because respondent consented to the order of protection and no appeal lies from an order entered upon consent (see Matter of Samantha N.F., 288 A.D.2d 863, 864, 732 N.Y.S.2d 193;  Matter of Torrey v. Dempsey, 248 A.D.2d 975, 670 N.Y.S.2d 158;  Matter of Charles v. Lewis, 224 A.D.2d 687, 638 N.Y.S.2d 717, lv. dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1006, 649 N.Y.S.2d 372, 672 N.E.2d 597, rearg. denied 89 N.Y.2d 917, 653 N.Y.S.2d 920, 676 N.E.2d 502;  Matter of Cherilyn P., 192 A.D.2d 1084, 596 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 652, 601 N.Y.S.2d 582, 619 N.E.2d 660). We reject the contention of respondent that his consent was not knowing and voluntary (see generally Matter of Jonathan LL., 294 A.D.2d 752, 742 N.Y.S.2d 430).

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

MEMORANDUM: