IN RE: ENA L. FARLEY (2026)

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

IN RE: ENA L. FARLEY, PH.D. FELIPE FARLEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. JONATHAN FARLEY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

682 Decided: October 09, 2026

PRESENT: MONTOUR, J.P., OGDEN, GREENWOOD, NOWAK, AND SKINNER, JJ.

JANE FARLEY, BROCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Christopher Farley (Christopher) commenced a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding seeking appointment as guardian of his mother, Ena L. Farley, Ph.D., an alleged incapacitated person (AIP), and respondent Jonathan Farley (Jonathan), another son of the AIP, filed a cross-petition to be appointed guardian. After a series of temporary guardian appointments and hearings, a third son, petitioner Felipe Farley (Felipe), was appointed guardian of the person and property of the AIP upon the consent of Christopher and Jonathan. Prior to the entry of the order and judgment appointing him guardian, Felipe signed a deed allegedly transferring real property (property) owned by the AIP to the AIP and Jonathan, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The AIP subsequently died, and Christopher, the executor of the AIP's estate, began marshaling the assets and discovered the transfer of the property. Upon learning of the transfer of the property, Supreme Court sua sponte issued an order to show cause requiring Felipe to appear and show cause why he should not be adjudicated in contempt of court. After a hearing, the court issued an order finding Felipe in contempt and determining that the transfer of the property to Jonathan was void. Jonathan now appeals.

We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. No appeal lies as of right from an order that did not decide a motion made upon notice, including an order entered sua sponte (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). Jonathan did not seek leave to appeal, and we decline to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Mosley v Parnell, 211 AD3d 1530, 1531 [4th Dept 2022]; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Hussain, 207 AD3d 778, 779 [2d Dept 2022]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller, 172 AD3d 1890, 1890 [4th Dept 2019]).

Entered: October 9, 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