AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA BENEROFE, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT WECHSLER, APPELLANT.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated February 25, 1999, and May 27, 1999, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 8, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioner is awarded one bill of costs.

The appellant previously appealed from the order dated February 25, 1999 (Appellate Division Docket No. 1999-02910), but that appeal was dismissed on December 14, 1999, for lack of prosecution (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[h]). Since a dismissal for want of prosecution constitutes an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been raised therein, the appellant is precluded from obtaining appellate review of those issues at this time (see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350; Brown v. United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 A.D.2d 378). Accordingly, the appeal from the order dated February 25, 1999, must be dismissed.

The appeal from the order dated May 27, 1999, also must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party (see, Matter of Starz v. Tissiera, 206 A.D.2d 432).

With respect to the order dated December 8, 1999, the Family Court properly denied the appellant's objections to the order dated May 27, 1999. There was no basis upon which the appellant could file objections to that order since it was entered upon the consent of the parties (see, Matter of Starz v. Tissiera, supra).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF BENEROFE v. WECHSLER
(Mar 12, 2001)