Burkhart v. Webber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burkhart v. Webber

273 A.D.2d 125, 709 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7114

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

DecidedJune 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 125 (Burkhart v. Webber) 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

Burkhart v. Webber, 273 A.D.2d 125, 709 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2000, denying the petition for a writ of prohibition and granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s appeal is moot since, subsequent to the entry of the order of protection to which petitioner now objects, petitioner consented, as a condition of having her criminal case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, to the imposition of a superseding order of protection incorporating the challenged portions of the subject order of protection (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2000, denying the petition for a writ of prohibition and granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s appeal is moot since, subsequent to the entry of the order of protection to which petitioner now objects, petitioner consented, as a condition of having her criminal case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, to the imposition of a superseding order of protection incorporating the challenged portions of the subject order of protection (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 125, 709 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkhart-v-webber-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack