Cahill v. Zakian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cahill v. Zakian

71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 738

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 765 (Cahill v. Zakian) 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

Cahill v. Zakian, 71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated September 18, 2008, as, upon confirming a referee’s report (Stanton, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 27, 2008, granted the motion of the attorney for the child for summary judgment dismissing the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order so as to award him sole custody of the subject child.

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

Since the child is now over 18 years of age, he is no longer subject to the order appealed from (see Matter of Merando v Vantassel, 66 AD3d 783 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated September 18, 2008, as, upon confirming a referee’s report (Stanton, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 27, 2008, granted the motion of the attorney for the child for summary judgment dismissing the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order so as to award him sole custody of the subject child.

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

Since the child is now over 18 years of age, he is no longer subject to the order appealed from (see Matter of Merando v Vantassel, 66 AD3d 783 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 765, 895 N.Y.S.2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahill-v-zakian-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack