| Matter of Valenson v Kenyon |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00050 [80 AD3d 799] |
| January 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Joseph Valenson, Respondent, v Karen Kenyon,Respondent, and Jolene Kenyon, Also Known as Jolene Valenson,Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard F. DeVall, Saratoga Springs, for Karen Kenyon, respondent. John J. LaBoda Jr., Saratoga Springs, attorney for the child.
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Hall, J.), enteredDecember 5, 2008, which partially dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.
Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent Jolene Kenyon (hereinafter the mother) arethe parents of one child, born in 1994. In May 2005, respondent Karen Kenyon (hereinafter thegrandmother) and her husband obtained an order that granted them physical custody of the child,without prejudice, and allowed either parent to petition for modification. Following thegrandfather's death and other circumstances within the family, the father commenced thisproceeding seeking modification of the existing order and primary physical custody of the child.After a hearing, Family Court awarded joint legal custody to the father and the grandmother, withprimary physical custody remaining with the grandmother and scheduled [*2]visitation for the father.[FN*]The mother appeals.
The appeal must be dismissed, as the mother was not aggrieved by Family Court'sdetermination (see CPLR 5511). To be aggrieved, a party must have a direct interest inthe matter at issue that is affected by the result, and the adjudication must have binding forceagainst the party's rights, person or property (see Matter of Grace R., 12 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]). The motherwas not a custodial parent under the prior order, she sought no change in that status in the 2008proceeding, and its resolution did not alter her status or affect her legal rights; thus, her directinterests were not affected. Her status as the child's mother and a party to the proceedings,without more, does not establish that she is aggrieved and, accordingly, she lacks standing topursue the appeal (see Matter of BrianJJ. v Heather KK., 61 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2009]; Matter of Green v Keough, 32 AD3d 591, 592 [2006]; Matter of Dana XX., 28 AD3d1025, 1025-1026 [2006]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed,without costs.
Footnote *: The father did not appeal fromFamily Court's order nor make any submission upon this appeal indicating his position.