Foster v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foster v. King

23 A.D.3d 1109, 803 N.Y.S.2d 473

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 1109 (Foster v. King) 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

Foster v. King, 23 A.D.3d 1109, 803 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered May 7, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed without prejudice the petition seeking modification of a prior custody order.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order dismissing without prejudice her petition seeking modification of a prior custody order. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a petition seeking the same relief, thus rendering the appeal moot (see Gelbard v Genesee Hosp., 255 AD2d 882 [1998], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 93 NY2d 916 [1999]; see also Matter of Coakley v Sanders, 247 AD2d 648 [1998]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Smith, 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 (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered May 7, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed without prejudice the petition seeking modification of a prior custody order.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order dismissing without prejudice her petition seeking modification of a prior custody order. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a petition seeking the same relief, thus rendering the appeal moot (see Gelbard v Genesee Hosp., 255 AD2d 882 [1998], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 93 NY2d 916 [1999]; see also Matter of Coakley v Sanders, 247 AD2d 648 [1998]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 1109, 803 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-king-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack