Matter of Farley

Matter of Farley 2026 NY Slip Op 05890 October 9, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. IN THE MATTER OF ENA L. FARLEY, PH.D. ------------------------------------------ FELIPE FARLEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, JONATHAN FARLEY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 9, 2026 682 CA 25-01517 Present: Montour, J.P., Ogden, Greenwood, Nowak, And Skinner, JJ. JANE FARLEY, BROCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Christopher S. Ciaccio, A.J.), dated February 3, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The order, among other things, declared null and void the transfer of certain real property to respondent Jonathan Farley. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Christopher Farley (Christopher) commenced a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding seeking appointment as guardian of his mother, Ena L. Farley, Ph.D., an alleged incapacitated person (AIP), and respondent Jonathan Farley (Jonathan), another son of the AIP, filed a cross-petition to be appointed guardian. After a series of temporary guardian appointments and hearings, a third son, petitioner Felipe Farley (Felipe), was appointed guardian of the person and property of the AIP upon the consent of Christopher and Jonathan. Prior to the entry of the order and judgment appointing him guardian, Felipe signed a deed allegedly transferring real property (property) owned by the AIP to the AIP and Jonathan, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The AIP subsequently died, and Christopher, the executor of the AIP's estate, began marshaling the assets and discovered the transfer of the property. Upon learning of the transfer of the property, Supreme Court sua sponte issued an order to show cause requiring Felipe to appear and show cause why he should not be adjudicated in contempt of court. After a hearing, the court issued an order finding Felipe in contempt and determining that the transfer of the property to Jonathan was void. Jonathan now appeals. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. No appeal lies as of right from an order that did not decide a motion made upon notice, including an order entered sua sponte (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). Jonathan did not seek leave to appeal, and we decline to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Mosley v Parnell, 211 AD3d 1530, 1531 [4th Dept 2022]; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Hussain, 207 AD3d 778, 779 [2d Dept 2022]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller, 172 AD3d 1890, 1890 [4th Dept 2019]). Entered: October 9, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court