| Matter of Miller v Miller |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04781 [63 AD3d 1323] |
| June 11, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Raymond C. Miller Sr., Appellant, v Patricia A.Miller, Respondent. |
—[*1] Reginald H. Bedell, Elizabethtown, for respondent. Gerald J. Ducharme, Law Guardian, Canton.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.),entered March 20, 2008, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, modified aprior order of visitation.
Petitioner (hereinafter the father) alleged that respondent (hereinafter the mother) violated aprior Family Court custody order by, among other things, failing to bring their children to visithim at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated. After hearing from counsel and notingthat neither parent could pay for the children's transportation to the father's facility, Family Courtencouraged the parties to settle their dispute by finding a mutually agreeable form of visitation.The father proposed that the mother provide him with weekly mailings, including drawings bythe children, and the mother agreed. Family Court then modified its prior order to provide forsuch visitation and expressly reserved the father's rights to seek modification when he is nolonger incarcerated. The father now appeals, contending that Family Court improperly resolvedthe proceeding without determining whether the mother had violated the prior order bypermitting persons to smoke around the children.
Inasmuch as the record confirms that the parties stipulated to the father's proposal forvisitation, he did not pursue any issue unrelated to visitation at that time and Family Court [*2]ordered the agreed-upon visitation, he is not an aggrieved partywho may appeal (see Matter of Geddesv Montpetit, 15 AD3d 797, 797 [2005], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 869 [2005];Matter of Forbus v Stolfi, 300 AD2d 852, 852 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 642[2003]). Even if he were, we would find no basis upon which the parties' stipulation should beset aside (see Matter of Woods v Velez-Shanahan, 308 AD2d 593, 594 [2003];Robison v Borelli, 239 AD2d 656, 657 [1997]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed,without costs.