James M. v. Linda M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James M. v. Linda M.

250 A.D.2d 684, 672 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5471

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 684 (James M. v. Linda M.) 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

James M. v. Linda M., 250 A.D.2d 684, 672 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated October 28, 1993, which dismissed the petition.

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

In light of our conclusion in a companion case (see, Matter of James Edward M., III, 250 AD2d 685 [decided herewith]), that the petitioner father did not establish his entitlement to vacatur of the order which terminated his parental rights, any corrective measures this Court might take regarding the dismissal of the father’s petition for custody and/or visitation would have no practical effect. Accordingly, this appeal is aca[685]*685demic (see, Matter of Nora S. v Pandozy, 243 AD2d 988; Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., 208 AD2d 844; Matter of Keith C., 226 AD2d 369). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lauria, J.), dated October 28, 1993, which dismissed the petition.

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

In light of our conclusion in a companion case (see, Matter of James Edward M., III, 250 AD2d 685 [decided herewith]), that the petitioner father did not establish his entitlement to vacatur of the order which terminated his parental rights, any corrective measures this Court might take regarding the dismissal of the father’s petition for custody and/or visitation would have no practical effect. Accordingly, this appeal is aca[685]*685demic (see, Matter of Nora S. v Pandozy, 243 AD2d 988; Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., 208 AD2d 844; Matter of Keith C., 226 AD2d 369). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 684, 672 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-m-v-linda-m-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack