STEINMANN v. STEINMANN (2026)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant husband's motion for, among other things, pendente lite maintenance, and ordered the parties to submit proposed orders setting a nesting schedule for the parties' children, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 26, 2025, which set the nesting schedule based on the parties' proposed orders, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken by a nonaggrieved party.

The appeal from the January 22, 2025 pendente lite order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see Matter of Jabuki M. v. Nicole B., 196 A.D.3d 405, 405, 146 N.Y.S.3d 773 [1st Dept. 2021]).  The wife's failure to submit timely papers in opposition to the husband's motion, or obtain permission to submit late papers, constituted a default;  her remedy is not an appeal but a motion to vacate the default (see CPLR 5511;  U.S. Bank N.A. v. Tiburcio, 199 A.D.3d 620, 620, 154 N.Y.S.3d 760 [1st Dept. 2021];  Deutsch v. Deutsch, 194 A.D.3d 542, 542, 143 N.Y.S.3d 873 [1st Dept. 2021]).  As a result, the appeal from the pendente lite order is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Miguel L. v. Ashley J.L., 177 A.D.3d 476, 477, 114 N.Y.S.3d 291 [1st Dept. 2019]).

The appeal from the February 26, 2025 order setting a nesting schedule is also dismissed.  The record shows that the wife consented to that order, as the court gave her the parental access that she requested in her proposed nesting order.  Therefore, the wife is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 (see Matter of Jessica M. v. Julio G.R., 176 A.D.3d 584, 584–585, 108 N.Y.S.3d 863 [1st Dept. 2019]).