In re Tyhera H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tyhera H.

77 A.D.3d 751, 908 N.Y.S.2d 605

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 751 (In re Tyhera H.) 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 Tyhera H., 77 A.D.3d 751, 908 N.Y.S.2d 605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an abuse proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated October 21, 2009, as, after a hearing, directed it to pay the child’s outstanding university room and board bill in the amount of $3,461.44 by October 28, 2009.

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

The issue raised on this appeal is academic. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the issue does not fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an abuse proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated October 21, 2009, as, after a hearing, directed it to pay the child’s outstanding university room and board bill in the amount of $3,461.44 by October 28, 2009.

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

The issue raised on this appeal is academic. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the issue does not fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 751, 908 N.Y.S.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tyhera-h-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack