Matter of Connor CC. (Jennifer DD.)
2012 NY Slip Op 07163 [99 AD3d 1127]
October 25, 2012
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 28, 2012


In the Matter of Connor CC. and Another, Alleged to be NeglectedChildren. Schoharie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jennifer DD.,Appellant.

[*1]Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.

David P. Lapinel, Schoharie County Department of Social Services, Schoharie, forrespondent.

Thomas F. Garner, Middleburgh, attorney for the child.

Michael W. Brosnan, Cobleskill, attorney for the child.

Egan Jr., J. Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Bartlett III,J.), entered February 3, 2011, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's children to be neglected, and (2) from anorder of protection entered thereon.

Petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding in January 2010 alleging that respondentabused controlled substances while caring for her two children (born in 1995 and 2004). Afact-finding hearing ensued, during the course of which respondent consented to a finding ofneglect without factual admissions (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]) and, further, toplacement of the children with her parents. When the matter came on for a dispositional hearing,respondent consented to both the continued placement of the children with her parents and thecorresponding order of protection. Respondent now appeals.[*2]

It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order enteredupon a party's consent (see Matter ofViolette K. [Sheila E.K.], 96 AD3d 1499, 1499 [2012]; Matter of Mary UU. [MichaelUU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2010]; Matter of Fantasia Y., 45 AD3d1215, 1216 [2007]; Matter ofCheyenne QQ., 37 AD3d 977, 977-978 [2007]). Further, inasmuch as respondent didnot move to vacate the underlying order, her present claim—that Family Court failed tocomply with the requirements of Family Ct Act § 1051 (f) and, therefore, her consent wasnot knowing, intelligent and voluntary—is not properly before us (see Matter of MaryUU. [Michael UU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d at 1228; Matter of Fantasia Y., 45AD3d at 1216; cf. Matter of Selena O.[Trisha O.—Steven R.], 84 AD3d 1648, 1648 [2011]; Matter of DeFrancesco v Mushtare, 77AD3d 1079, 1080 [2010]). Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals aredismissed, without costs.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.