You are here: / / ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE...
, ,

ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE RAISED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal in this neglect proceeding, noted that an order entered upon consent is not appealable. The argument that the consent was coerced must be raised in a motion to vacate the order:

Following consultation with her counsel, respondent … consented on the record to a finding of neglect. Family Court then entered an order that adjudicated the children to be neglected and contained the agreed-upon terms of disposition. Respondent appeals.

It is well settled that an order entered upon consent is not appealable … . Respondent’s claim that her consent was involuntary because she was coerced into accepting the settlement offer should have been raised in Family Court by way of a motion to vacate the order (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f] … ). As the record does not reveal that any such application was made, the appeal is not properly before this Court. Matter of Vicktoriya DD. (Sheryl EE.), 2019 NY Slip Op 03411, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

You might also like
Electricity-Steam Generation Rate Changes Did Not Qualify as a “Rule” Under the State Administrative Procedure Act
DESPITE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SAY WHICH OF TWO CRACKS IN THE PAVEMENT CAUSED HIS FALL, THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED TO WITHSTAND SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory Immunity
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.
Employer Was Not Prejudiced by Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Notice of the Accident, Claim Allowed
FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE... BECAUSE NO PETITION HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, FAMILY...