Darisa D. v. Bienvenida D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darisa D. v. Bienvenida D.

26 A.D.3d 222, 809 N.Y.S.2d 49

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 222 (Darisa D. v. Bienvenida D.) 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

Darisa D. v. Bienvenida D., 26 A.D.3d 222, 809 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2005, which, after a trial, granted the petition for custody of the subject child, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeal has been rendered moot because, during its [223]*223pendency, the subject child reached the age of majority and, accordingly, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see Matter of Norwood v Capone, 15 AD3d 790, 792-793 [2005], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 878 [2005]; Slater-Mau v Mau, 4 AD3d 658 [2004]; Matter of Lazaro v Lazaro, 227 AD2d 402 [1996]). The circumstances presented, including, in particular, that Family Court did not make any finding with respect to the allegations of abuse and mistreatment, do not warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2005, which, after a trial, granted the petition for custody of the subject child, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeal has been rendered moot because, during its [223]*223pendency, the subject child reached the age of majority and, accordingly, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see Matter of Norwood v Capone, 15 AD3d 790, 792-793 [2005], appeal dismissed 4 NY3d 878 [2005]; Slater-Mau v Mau, 4 AD3d 658 [2004]; Matter of Lazaro v Lazaro, 227 AD2d 402 [1996]). The circumstances presented, including, in particular, that Family Court did not make any finding with respect to the allegations of abuse and mistreatment, do not warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 222, 809 N.Y.S.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darisa-d-v-bienvenida-d-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack