| Matter of Selena O. (Trisha O.\MSteven R.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04321 [84 AD3d 1648] |
| May 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Selena O., an Infant. Clinton County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Trisha O., Respondent, and Steven R.,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), enteredNovember 19, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to FamilyCt Act article 10, to award permanent custody of the child to the grandmother.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to have custody of respondents' child (born in2008) awarded to the maternal grandmother. In the course of the proceedings, the parties came toan agreement that custody be granted to the grandmother with supervised visitation torespondents. Family Court thereafter entered an order reflecting the parties' agreement andrespondent Steven R. (hereinafter the father) now appeals.
As the order was entered upon consent, it is not appealable (see Matter of Mary UU. [MichaelUU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2010]; Matter of Moore v Moore, 56 AD3d982 [2008]; Matter of FantasiaY., 45 AD3d 1215 [2007]). Moreover, because he failed to make a motion to vacate theorder, the father's claim that his consent was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is notproperly before us (see Matter of Mary UU. [Michael UU.—Marie [*2]VV.], 70 AD3d at 1228; Matter of McDonald v Reed, 68 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2009], lvdismissed 14 NY3d 758 [2010]; Matter of Fantasia Y., 45 AD3d at 1215) and, in anyevent, such assertion is belied by the record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and counsel'sapplication to be relieved of his assignment need not be addressed (see Matter of Marshall v Haas, 74AD3d 1593, 1593-1594 [2010]; Matter of Michaela PP. [Derwood PP.], 67 AD3d 1083, 1084[2009]).
Rose, J.P., Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal isdismissed, without costs.