John J. Baecher, Respondent - Appellant,
John J. Baecher, Jr., Appellant - Respondent,
and Elizabeth Baecher, Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
95 A.D.2d 841 (1983)
June 27, 1983
Baecher v. Baecher
95 A.D.2d 841
Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.
On the court's own motion, appeals dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeals by defendant John J. Baecher, Jr. have been perfected in violation of our order dated June 9, 1982; and the appeals by plaintiff John Joseph Baecher have been perfected in violation of our orders dated June 9, 1982 and October 19, 1982. Moreover, a review of the papers filed on appeal demonstrates the absence of an appealable order. No appeal lies from the stipulation of settlement (the "consent agreement" of March 11, 1981) entered into between plaintiff and defendant Elizabeth Baecher. Nor does an appeal lie from the unopposed order and judgment entered upon said stipulation. Plaintiff's remedy is to move to vacate the stipulation of settlement (cf. Matter of Colletti v Colletti, 56 A.D.2d 845). Finally, John J. Baecher, Jr.'s appeals are dismissable on still another crucial ground. Having been released from the instant action, on his own motion, prior to its settlement by stipulation, he is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511.
The case of Baecher v. Baecher is provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as Baecher may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. Baecher v. Baecher is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.