David C. v. Cai Y.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David C. v. Cai Y.C.

276 A.D.2d 359, 714 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10597

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 359 (David C. v. Cai Y.C.) 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

David C. v. Cai Y.C., 276 A.D.2d 359, 714 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from orders, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered June 6, 2000, which extended an order granting temporary custody of the parties’ child to the petitioner father (Docket No. V-05325/00), and which granted petitioner father a temporary order of protection against re[360]*360spondent mother (Docket No. 0-05323/00), unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeals have been rendered moot by Family Court’s June 23, 2000 order granting respondent temporary primary physical custody of the child. We decline to review the issues raised on appeal pursuant to any exception to the mootness doctrine. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Appeals from orders, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered June 6, 2000, which extended an order granting temporary custody of the parties’ child to the petitioner father (Docket No. V-05325/00), and which granted petitioner father a temporary order of protection against re[360]*360spondent mother (Docket No. 0-05323/00), unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeals have been rendered moot by Family Court’s June 23, 2000 order granting respondent temporary primary physical custody of the child. We decline to review the issues raised on appeal pursuant to any exception to the mootness doctrine. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 359, 714 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-c-v-cai-yc-nyappdiv-2000.