Matter of Jada D. (Juan D.)

Matter of Jada D. (Juan D.) (2024 NY Slip Op 04767) Matter of Jada D. (Juan D.) 2024 NY Slip Op 04767 Decided on October 2, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on October 2, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS LARA J. GENOVESI LILLIAN WAN, JJ. 2023-09951 (Docket Nos. N-3115-21, N-3116-21) [*1]In the Matter of Jada D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Juan D. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Maiya M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Juan D. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) Robert Hausner, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Jesse A. Townsend of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children. DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Juan D. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated October 10, 2023. The order granted the motion of Juan D. to dismiss the petition alleging that he violated an order of protection and dismissed the proceeding, without prejudice. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as Juan D. is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR). Juan D. (hereinafter the appellant), who sought dismissal of the petition alleging that he violated an order of protection, is not aggrieved by the Family Court's order dismissing the proceeding (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Agam B. [Janna W.], 121 AD3d 1109, 1109; Matter of Berg v Mantia, 77 AD3d 827, 827). Contrary to the appellant's contention, he is not aggrieved by the court's decision to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice to the petitioner filing an order to show cause seeking a finding of contempt against the appellant (see Matter of Wiley v Wiley, 226 AD3d 1035, 1036). CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, GENOVESI and WAN, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court