F.K. v. K.F.
This text of F.K. v. K.F. (F.K. v. K.F.) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
F.K. v K.F.
2026 NY Slip Op 02336
April 16, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
F.K., Petitioner-Appellant,
v
K.F. Respondent-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: April 16, 2026
Docket No. V-00062/22, V-00063/22, V-00123/22, V-00124/22|Appeal No. 6377|Case No. 2024-05838|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Rodriguez, Michael, JJ.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Donna C. Chin, New York, attorney for children.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jessica I. Flores, J.), entered on or about August 19, 2024, which temporarily awarded physical custody of the subject children to respondent mother and provided petitioner father with visitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Application by the father's assigned attorney to withdraw as appellate counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). A review of the record demonstrates that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on this appeal. The temporary order of visitation is not an order of disposition within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1112 (a) and thus is not appealable as of right (see Matter of Jodeci S. v Sheila M., 240 AD3d 420, 420-421 [1st Dept 2025]; Matter of Rosa M. v Francisco P., 151 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2017]). Furthermore, the appeal is moot as the temporary order has already expired and been superseded by subsequent orders of custody and visitation, none of which were appealed (see Matter of T.R. [Jaquasia G.], 227 AD3d 530, 530 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Rolando A.G. v Marisol R.M., 172 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Crystal G. v Marquis E., 170 AD3d 557, 557-558 [1st Dept 2019]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 16, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI