Carnevale-Martin v. Stone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carnevale-Martin v. Stone

241 A.D.2d 779, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8108

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 779 (Carnevale-Martin v. Stone) 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

Carnevale-Martin v. Stone, 241 A.D.2d 779, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton

[780]*780Respondent challenges the propriety of an order modifying the terms of his visitation with the parties’ son. The order in question was entered in March 1996, when respondent failed to appear for a hearing that had been scheduled to consider petitioner’s application for modification of a prior order. Several months later, after a related violation petition had come on for a hearing, the parties apparently reached agreement with respect to the visitation issues that are at the core of this appeal, and an order incorporating the agreed-upon terms was issued in August 1996. Inasmuch as that order addresses the same issues as, and effectively supersedes, the directive we are asked to review, this appeal is now moot (see, Matter of Ballard v Parker, 232 AD2d 740, 741; Matter of Oliveras v Arzuaga, 209 AD2d 298; Ruggerio v Ruggerio, 173 AD2d 595, 597; cf., Matter of Rush v Rush, 201 AD2d 836, 837).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, 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

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton

[780]*780Respondent challenges the propriety of an order modifying the terms of his visitation with the parties’ son. The order in question was entered in March 1996, when respondent failed to appear for a hearing that had been scheduled to consider petitioner’s application for modification of a prior order. Several months later, after a related violation petition had come on for a hearing, the parties apparently reached agreement with respect to the visitation issues that are at the core of this appeal, and an order incorporating the agreed-upon terms was issued in August 1996. Inasmuch as that order addresses the same issues as, and effectively supersedes, the directive we are asked to review, this appeal is now moot (see, Matter of Ballard v Parker, 232 AD2d 740, 741; Matter of Oliveras v Arzuaga, 209 AD2d 298; Ruggerio v Ruggerio, 173 AD2d 595, 597; cf., Matter of Rush v Rush, 201 AD2d 836, 837).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 779, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnevale-martin-v-stone-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack