Legal Opinion
Reilly v. Reilly
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 25, 2008PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*884Where, as here, an order recites that it is made on consent, it is not appealable (see Matter of Gittens v Chin-On, 19 AD3d 596 [2005]; Matter of Polyak v Toyber, 2 AD3d 642 [2003]; Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca, 291 AD2d 448, 449 [2002]). To the extent that the appellant challenges the recitation of consent as it appears on the order dated January 29, 2007, her remedy is to move in Family Court to vacate or resettle the order (see Matter of Polyak v Toyber, 2 AD3d at 642-643; Matter of Ras v Rupp, 295 AD2d 892, 893 [2002]; Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca, 291 AD2d at 449; Nayman v Remsen Apts.,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brouwer v. PaciccaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Gittens v. Chin-OnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Nayman v. Remsen Apartments, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Polyak v. ToyberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Ras v. RuppAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
3Cited by9 opinions
- Strang v. RathboneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- In Re Sasha J.J. Putnam County Department of Social ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Uriel S. v. Hadar S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- In re Naomi S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Spelman v. SpelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.