In re Devika R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Devika R.

109 A.D.3d 474, 969 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedAugust 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 474 (In re Devika R.) 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

In re Devika R., 109 A.D.3d 474, 969 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the nonparties Jill C. Stone and Jill C. Stone, Esq., EC., appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated September 11, 2012, which granted the motion of the attorney for the child to disqualify them as counsel for Neel S. in this proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

[475]*475The appellants contend that the Family Court improperly disqualified them as counsel for Neel S. in this proceeding. However, in light of the fact that the subject proceeding has been concluded, rendering this appeal academic (see Rivas v Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC, 52 AD3d 401, 402 [2008]), and because the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), the appeal must be dismissed. Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the nonparties Jill C. Stone and Jill C. Stone, Esq., EC., appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated September 11, 2012, which granted the motion of the attorney for the child to disqualify them as counsel for Neel S. in this proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

[475]*475The appellants contend that the Family Court improperly disqualified them as counsel for Neel S. in this proceeding. However, in light of the fact that the subject proceeding has been concluded, rendering this appeal academic (see Rivas v Raymond Schwartzberg & Assoc., PLLC, 52 AD3d 401, 402 [2008]), and because the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), the appeal must be dismissed. Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 474, 969 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-devika-r-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack