| Matter of Marshall v Haas |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05303 [74 AD3d 1593] |
| June 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Eric Marshall, Appellant, v Sierra P. Haas,Respondent, et al., Respondent. (And Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Carol Malz, Oneonta, for Sierra P. Haas, respondent. Thomas F. Garner, Middleburgh, attorney for the child.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court of Broome County(Sullivan, J.), entered May 19, 2009, which, among other things, granted an application byrespondent Sierra P. Haas, in proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a priororder of custody and visitation.
Petitioner and respondent Sierra P. Haas (hereinafter respondent) are the parents of adaughter (born in 2005). In January 2007, Family Court issued a custody order upon stipulationdirecting that petitioner and respondent share joint custody of the child and establishing avisitation schedule for petitioner. Family Court thereafter dismissed the series of modificationand violation petitions that followed, terminated the award of visitation contained in the January2007 order and directed petitioner and respondent to work out their differences as to visitation.Upon petitioner's appeal to this Court, we reversed and remitted these matters for furtherproceedings, finding that Family Court abused its discretion in abruptly terminating petitioner's[*2]visitation (Matter of Marshall v Bradley, 59 AD3d 870 [2009]). Our decision,in turn, prompted respondent to commence a modification proceeding seeking sole custody ofthe child and to suspend petitioner's visitation. Thereafter, upon stipulation of the parties, FamilyCourt awarded respondent sole custody of the child and established a visitation schedule forpetitioner. Petitioner now appeals and his counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment upon theground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal.
As no appeal lies from an order entered on consent (see Matter of Mary UU. [Michael UU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d1227, 1228 [2010]; Matter ofCheyenne QQ., 39 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2007]), this appeal must be dismissed.Accordingly, counsel's application to be relieved of his assignment is academic and need not beaddressed (see Matter of Michaela PP.[Derwood PP.], 67 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2009]; Matter of Garcia v Carballo, 277AD2d 453 [2000]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed,without costs.