Dawn M.L. v. Gary A.M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawn M.L. v. Gary A.M.

31 A.D.3d 1222, 817 N.Y.S.2d 557

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 1222 (Dawn M.L. v. Gary A.M.) 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

Dawn M.L. v. Gary A.M., 31 A.D.3d 1222, 817 N.Y.S.2d 557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered April 11, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking modification of a custody order and now appeals from an order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. The appeal is moot, however, because the parties’ child reached the age of 18 years during the pendency of this appeal (see Matter of Woodruff v Adside, 26 AD3d 866 [2006]; Matter of Krest v Kawczynski, 9 AD3d 907, 907-908 [2004]; Matter of Carnese v Wiegert, 273 AD2d 554, 556 [2000]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered April 11, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking modification of a custody order and now appeals from an order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. The appeal is moot, however, because the parties’ child reached the age of 18 years during the pendency of this appeal (see Matter of Woodruff v Adside, 26 AD3d 866 [2006]; Matter of Krest v Kawczynski, 9 AD3d 907, 907-908 [2004]; Matter of Carnese v Wiegert, 273 AD2d 554, 556 [2000]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 1222, 817 N.Y.S.2d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawn-ml-v-gary-am-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack