MORGAN, ANNA H. v. PETERSON, JR., JAMES W. , 17 N.Y.S.3d 375 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1090
    CAF 14-00216
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF ANNA H. MORGAN,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JAMES W. PETERSON, JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    ---------------------------------------------
    IN THE MATTER OF JAMES W. PETERSON, JR.,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    V
    ANNA H. MORGAN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    PAUL A. NORTON, CLINTON, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT-
    RESPONDENT.
    PAUL SKAVINA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROME.
    Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Julia M.
    Brouillette, R.), entered December 19, 2013 in proceedings pursuant to
    Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded
    Anna H. Morgan sole legal custody of the subject child.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: On appeal from an order of custody and visitation
    entered following a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6,
    respondent-petitioner father contends that Family Court erred in
    vacating a prior order of custody and visitation entered upon the
    consent of the parties and in conducting a de novo hearing. We reject
    that contention. It is well established that a court retains inherent
    authority to vacate its own order in the interest of justice, even
    when entered on consent (see Matter of Chomik v Sypniak, 70 AD3d 1336,
    1336-1337). “Indeed, the court’s power to [vacate an order in the
    interest of justice] is inherent and ‘does not depend upon any
    statute’ ” (Ruben v American & Foreign Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 63, 67; see
    Matter of Delfin A., 123 AD2d 318, 320). Here, petitioner-respondent
    mother had the right to the assistance of counsel in this custody
    proceeding (see § 262 [a] [v]; Matter of Kristin R.H. v Robert E.H.,
    -2-                          1090
    CAF 14-00216
    48 AD3d 1278, 1279), and the conceded failure on the part of the court
    to advise her of that right was a sufficient basis for vacating the
    resulting order in the interest of justice (see generally Delfin A.,
    123 AD2d at 319-320).
    Entered:   October 9, 2015                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAF 14-00216

Citation Numbers: 132 A.D.3d 1419, 17 N.Y.S.3d 375

Filed Date: 10/9/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023