IN RE: Michelle STOLL (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals, (1) by permission, from a temporary order of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), dated September 7, 2023, and (2) a temporary order of protection of the same court dated January 30, 2024.  The temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, inter alia, directed the father to stay away from the parties' children, to refrain from harassment and reckless endangerment, and to refrain from communication or any other contact by mail, telephone, email, voicemail or other electronic or any other means with respect to the children.  The temporary order of protection dated January 30, 2024, extended the provisions of the temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, up to and including July 29, 2024.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 3, 2024, enforcement of the temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, as extended by the temporary order of protection dated January 30, 2024, was stayed with respect to the oldest child pending hearing and determination of the appeals or further order of the Family Court, Rockland County, whichever occurs first, and enforcement of so much of the temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, as directed the father to refrain from communication or any other contact by mail, telephone, email, voicemail or other electronic or any other means with the two younger children was stayed to the extent that the father was permitted daily contact with the two younger children each day at 6:00 p.m. PST, pending hearing and determination of the appeals.

ORDERED that the appeal from the temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the temporary order of protection dated January 30, 2024, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the temporary order of protection dated September 7, 2023, must be dismissed, as that order was superseded by the temporary order of protection dated January 30, 2024, and imposes no enduring consequences on the father (see Matter of Nicholas M. [Robert M.], 224 AD3d 689, 690;  Matter of Muhamad Omar W. [Jessica W.], 204 AD3d 453, 454).  The appeal from the temporary order of protection dated January 30, 2024, must be dismissed, as that order is not appealable as of right, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Famly Ct Act § 1112[a];  Matter of Lederman v. Lederman, 208 AD3d 483, 484).

BARROS, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.