Boore v. Parks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boore v. Parks

63 A.D.3d 1307, 882 N.Y.S.2d 722

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

DecidedJune 11, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1307 (Boore v. Parks) 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

Boore v. Parks, 63 A.D.3d 1307, 882 N.Y.S.2d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

J Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), entered April 18, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation with the parties’ child.

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the biological parents of a child born in 1998. The father, who was in jail when the child was born, consented to entry of an order granting the mother sole custody with no visitation for him. Later, after not having seen the child for approximately six years, the father commenced this proceeding to obtain visitation while he was again incarcerated. Following a hearing, Family Court awarded him visitation by means of a video conference on one occasion. The father appeals, contending that Family Court should have granted him in-person jailhouse visitation.

Inasmuch as the father is no longer incarcerated, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P., 309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]). To the extent that he seeks in-person visitation now that he has been released on parole, the proper course would be to seek such relief in a new petition affording Family Court an [1308]*1308opportunity to determine the child’s best interests under the father’s current circumstances (see Matter of Anthony MM. v Rena LL., 34 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 805 [2007]).

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Rose, J.

J Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), entered April 18, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation with the parties’ child.

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the biological parents of a child born in 1998. The father, who was in jail when the child was born, consented to entry of an order granting the mother sole custody with no visitation for him. Later, after not having seen the child for approximately six years, the father commenced this proceeding to obtain visitation while he was again incarcerated. Following a hearing, Family Court awarded him visitation by means of a video conference on one occasion. The father appeals, contending that Family Court should have granted him in-person jailhouse visitation.

Inasmuch as the father is no longer incarcerated, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P., 309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]). To the extent that he seeks in-person visitation now that he has been released on parole, the proper course would be to seek such relief in a new petition affording Family Court an [1308]*1308opportunity to determine the child’s best interests under the father’s current circumstances (see Matter of Anthony MM. v Rena LL., 34 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 805 [2007]).

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1307, 882 N.Y.S.2d 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boore-v-parks-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack