Exum v. Sims

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Exum v. Sims

254 A.D.2d 178, 679 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 178 (Exum v. Sims) 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

Exum v. Sims, 254 A.D.2d 178, 679 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about August 27, 1997, which dismissed petitioner’s application for modification of a prior order granting respondent a permanent order of protection against him, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Since petitioner has evidently failed to file a notice of appeal as to the subject order, this Court is without jurisdiction to review that order (Matter of Winans v Manz, 54 AD2d 597). In any event, since the final order of protection, dated August 12, 1997, expired on August 11, 1998, and was not extended, this appeal, even if jurisdictionally proper, would be dismissible for mootness since its determination would not affect the rights of the parties (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714; Matter of Greene v Greene, 216 AD2d 393), or have enduring consequences. In this last connection, we note that Family Court never made a determination that petitioner committed a family offense (compare, e.g., Matter of Cindy L. S. v David L. S., 247 AD2d 543). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, 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 (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about August 27, 1997, which dismissed petitioner’s application for modification of a prior order granting respondent a permanent order of protection against him, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Since petitioner has evidently failed to file a notice of appeal as to the subject order, this Court is without jurisdiction to review that order (Matter of Winans v Manz, 54 AD2d 597). In any event, since the final order of protection, dated August 12, 1997, expired on August 11, 1998, and was not extended, this appeal, even if jurisdictionally proper, would be dismissible for mootness since its determination would not affect the rights of the parties (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714; Matter of Greene v Greene, 216 AD2d 393), or have enduring consequences. In this last connection, we note that Family Court never made a determination that petitioner committed a family offense (compare, e.g., Matter of Cindy L. S. v David L. S., 247 AD2d 543). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 178, 679 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exum-v-sims-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack