Frances K. v. Christopher T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frances K. v. Christopher T.

244 A.D.2d 554, 665 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 554 (Frances K. v. Christopher T.) 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

Frances K. v. Christopher T., 244 A.D.2d 554, 665 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—The father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 30, 1996, which denied his cross motion to dismiss two petitions entitled “Petition, Violation of Order of Protection”, and “Petition For Modification of Order Made By Family Court”.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion is granted, and the petitions are dismissed.

The Family Court erred in denying the father’s cross motion to dismiss the subject petitions since the Family Court had [555]*555previously vacated the order of protection dated May 20, 1993, upon which the petitions were predicated, and this Court subsequently dismissed as academic the appeal from that order (see, Matter of Frances K. v Christopher T., 220 AD2d 422; see also, United States v Pink, 36 NYS2d 961).

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—The father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 30, 1996, which denied his cross motion to dismiss two petitions entitled “Petition, Violation of Order of Protection”, and “Petition For Modification of Order Made By Family Court”.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion is granted, and the petitions are dismissed.

The Family Court erred in denying the father’s cross motion to dismiss the subject petitions since the Family Court had [555]*555previously vacated the order of protection dated May 20, 1993, upon which the petitions were predicated, and this Court subsequently dismissed as academic the appeal from that order (see, Matter of Frances K. v Christopher T., 220 AD2d 422; see also, United States v Pink, 36 NYS2d 961).

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 554, 665 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frances-k-v-christopher-t-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack