JULIE MORSE PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT v. CATHERINE SULLIVAN ESQ ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN RESPONDENT (2026)

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

JULIE MORSE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BRADFORD MORSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, RESPONDENT.

144 Decided: April 24, 2026

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, CURRAN, SMITH, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

ALDERMAN AND ALDERMAN PLLC, SYRACUSE (RICHARD B. ALDERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (CHRISTOPHER A. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, LIVERPOOL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant in this matrimonial action appeals from an order approving compensation for the Attorney for the Children. The appeal must be dismissed because no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 334 [2003]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller, 172 AD3d 1890, 1890 [4th Dept 2019]). Although we have the power to treat the notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal, we decline to do so here (see Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co., III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 197 AD3d 976, 977 [4th Dept 2021]).

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

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Out of date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