Andrews v. Andrews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrews v. Andrews

168 A.D.2d 444, 563 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14971

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 444 (Andrews v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Andrews, 168 A.D.2d 444, 563 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, inter alia, for an order of protection, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated March 22, 1989, which granted the petitioner husband an order of protection against his former wife for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The order of protection granted to the petitioner husband has already expired, and there is no indication in the record that it has been extended. Since the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by a determination as to the propriety of this order, the appeal is dismissed as academic (see, Matter [445]*445of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707; Matter of Gansburg v Gansburg, 127 AD2d 766). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, inter alia, for an order of protection, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Schindler, J.), dated March 22, 1989, which granted the petitioner husband an order of protection against his former wife for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The order of protection granted to the petitioner husband has already expired, and there is no indication in the record that it has been extended. Since the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by a determination as to the propriety of this order, the appeal is dismissed as academic (see, Matter [445]*445of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707; Matter of Gansburg v Gansburg, 127 AD2d 766). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 444, 563 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-andrews-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack