Morse v. Morse
Docket 144 CA 24-01826
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02518
- Docket
- 144 CA 24-01826
Appeal from a Supreme Court order in a matrimonial action approving compensation for the Attorney for the Children
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed an appeal by defendant Bradford Morse challenging a Supreme Court order that, among other things, approved compensation for the Attorney for the Children in a matrimonial action. The court held the appeal could not proceed as of right because the challenged order did not decide a motion made on notice under CPLR 5701(a) and therefore is not immediately appealable. The panel declined to treat the notice of appeal as a permission-to-appeal application and denied discretionary review.
Issues Decided
- Whether an appeal lies as of right from a Supreme Court order approving compensation for the Attorney for the Children when the order did not decide a motion made on notice
- Whether the Appellate Division should treat a notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on CPLR 5701(a) and controlling precedent that orders not deciding a motion made on notice are not appealable as of right. Because the challenged order did not decide a noticed motion, the appeal could not proceed. Although the court has discretion to treat a notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal, the panel chose not to exercise that power and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Authorities Cited
- CPLR 5701(a)
- Sholes v Meagher100 NY2d 333 (2003)
- Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co., III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.197 AD3d 976 (4th Dept 2021)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Julie Morse
- Defendant
- Bradford Morse
- Attorney
- Catherine M. Sullivan
- Attorney
- Richard B. Alderman
- Attorney
- Christopher A. Powers
- Judge
- Danielle M. Fogel
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Supreme Court order date
- 2024-06-21
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about permission to appeal
Discuss with your attorney whether there are grounds to seek leave (permission) to appeal or other extraordinary relief, and whether the court's discretion could be invoked with additional justification.
- 2
Review lower-court proceedings
Ensure the underlying motion practice and record are complete and consider renewing or re-noticing any motion that might produce an appealable order.
- 3
Comply with the order
If the approved compensation award is immediately enforceable, take necessary steps to comply with or satisfy the award while pursuing any further relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal because the order approving the Attorney for the Children's compensation was not an appealable order as of right.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The parties in the matrimonial case (Julie and Bradford Morse) and the Attorney for the Children are affected because the lower court's approval of compensation stands without appellate review here.
- What happens next?
- The lower court's order approving the Attorney for the Children's compensation remains in effect; the appellant may consider other procedural options if available.
- Why was the appeal dismissed?
- Under CPLR 5701(a) and precedent, orders that do not decide a motion made on notice are not appealable as of right, and the court declined to grant permission to appeal.
- Can this dismissal be appealed?
- Dismissal of an appeal for lack of jurisdiction is generally final, though the appellant might seek permission to appeal in limited circumstances or other extraordinary relief; consulting counsel is recommended.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Morse v Morse - 2026 NY Slip Op 02518 Morse v Morse 2026 NY Slip Op 02518 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department JULIE MORSE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v BRADFORD MORSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ------------------------------------------ CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 144 CA 24-01826 Present: Whalen, P.J., Lindley, Curran, Smith, And Delconte, JJ. ALDERMAN AND ALDERMAN PLLC, SYRACUSE (RICHARD B. ALDERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (CHRISTOPHER A. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, LIVERPOOL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Danielle M. Fogel, J.), entered June 21, 2024. The order, among other things, approved compensation for the Attorney for the Children. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant in this matrimonial action appeals from an order approving compensation for the Attorney for the Children. The appeal must be dismissed because no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice ( see CPLR 5701 [a]; Sholes v Meagher , 100 NY2d 333, 334 [2003]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller , 172 AD3d 1890, 1890 [4th Dept 2019]). Although we have the power to treat the notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal, we decline to do so here ( see Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co. , III , Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. , 197 AD3d 976, 977 [4th Dept 2021]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn