Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: EDDIE COREY WALKER, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. TEESHA D. BOWMAN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings on the petition.
Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order in which Family Court sua sponte dismissed the petition for “lack of jurisdiction.” We note at the outset that, because the order did not determine a motion made on notice, it is not appealable as of right (see Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335; Matter of Mary L.R. v. Vernon B., 48 AD3d 1088, lv denied 10 NY3d 710). Although the father did not seek leave to appeal, under the circumstances of this case we treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, and we grant the application in the interest of justice (see Hurd v. Hurd, 66 AD3d 1492; Milton v. 305/72 Owners Corp., 19 AD3d 133, lv denied 7 NY3d 778; see generally CPLR 5701[c] ).
The evidence in the record establishes that the father did not sign the stipulation referring the matter to a referee to hear and determine the matter. “We agree with the father that, because he refused to consent to the authority of [a referee] to hear and determine the matter, the [Referee] lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition” (Matter of David S.S. v. Mia B.M., 48 AD3d 1246, 1246; see Matter of Osmundson v. Held-Cummings, 306 A.D.2d 950, 950-951). We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: CAF 08-01246
Decided: February 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)