IN RE: Jeffrey R. HARPER (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: Jeffrey R. HARPER, Esq., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Brent M. SNOW, Respondent-Appellant, and Brandie Salisbury, Respondent-Respondent.

73 Decided: February 11, 2026

PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, SMITH, OGDEN, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. KAMAN BERLOVE LLP, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. ANDREW J. DIPASQUALE, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent father purports to appeal from a document denominated “Memorandum-Decision” that modified the visitation provisions of a prior order of custody and visitation. We dismiss the appeal. “[N]o appeal lies from a [mere] decision” (Gunn v. Palmieri, 86 N.Y.2d 830, 830, 634 N.Y.S.2d 435, 658 N.E.2d 212 [1995]; see Garcia v. Town of Tonawanda, 194 A.D.3d 1479, 1479-1480, 143 N.Y.S.3d 635 [4th Dept. 2021]). The document here is, on its face, a mere decision (see generally CPLR 2219 [a]), and it states in the penultimate sentence that petitioner “shall draft and submit a proposed [o]rder consistent with this decision” (see Pino v. Harnischfeger, 42 A.D.3d 980, 982, 840 N.Y.S.2d 504 [4th Dept. 2007]).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network