| Matter of Withers v Withers |
| Motion No: 2009-11087 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2009 NY Slip Op 91489(U) |
| Decided on December 16, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M96122
E/sl
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
RUTH C. BALKIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
|
2009-11087, 2009-11088, 2009-11089, 2009-11091 In the Matter of Robert B. Withers, appellant, v Gail R. Withers, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Gail R. Withers, appellant, v Robert B. Withers, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket No. F-10697/08)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated August 3, 2009 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2009-11087), two orders of the same court both dated August 4, 2009 (Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2009-11088 and 2009-11089), and a transcript of the minutes of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter on September 2, 2009 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2009-11091), to stay enforcement of an oral directive of the Family Court, Westchester County, made on September 2, 2009, pending hearing and determination of the appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the transcript of the minutes of the proceedings on September 2, 2009 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2009-11091), is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated December 2, 2009; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 4, 2009 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2009-11088), that dismissed the petition for downward modification is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order is not appealable until objections are reviewed by a Family Court judge (see Family Ct Act § 439[e]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BALKIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court