Cooper-Winfield v. Gary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper-Winfield v. Gary

9 A.D.3d 366, 778 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361

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

DecidedJuly 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 366 (Cooper-Winfield v. Gary) 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

Cooper-Winfield v. Gary, 9 A.D.3d 366, 778 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the father appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Wright, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which, inter alia, directed that he stay away from the mother and the child except for court-ordered visitation.

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

The order of protection appealed from expired by its own terms on June 28, 2003. Therefore, the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by a determination as to the propriety of the order of protection (see Matter of Zieran v Marvin, 2 AD3d 870 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 707 [2004]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 308 AD2d 450 [2003]). “Further, . . . the issuance of the order[ ] of protection in this case did not consti[367]*367tute a ‘permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the [father’s] status in potential future proceedings’ ” (Matter of Levande v Levande, supra at 451; see Matter of McClure v McClure, 176 AD2d 325 [1991]; cf. Matter of Malfetano v Parker, 7 AD3d 714 [2004]; Matter of Zieran v Marvin, supra). Accordingly, the appeal from the order of protection must be dismissed. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Townes and Fisher, 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 articles 6 and 8, the father appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Wright, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which, inter alia, directed that he stay away from the mother and the child except for court-ordered visitation.

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

The order of protection appealed from expired by its own terms on June 28, 2003. Therefore, the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by a determination as to the propriety of the order of protection (see Matter of Zieran v Marvin, 2 AD3d 870 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 707 [2004]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 308 AD2d 450 [2003]). “Further, . . . the issuance of the order[ ] of protection in this case did not consti[367]*367tute a ‘permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the [father’s] status in potential future proceedings’ ” (Matter of Levande v Levande, supra at 451; see Matter of McClure v McClure, 176 AD2d 325 [1991]; cf. Matter of Malfetano v Parker, 7 AD3d 714 [2004]; Matter of Zieran v Marvin, supra). Accordingly, the appeal from the order of protection must be dismissed. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 366, 778 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-winfield-v-gary-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack