JONES, CHRISTIAN L. v. TUCKER, LAURA S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JONES, CHRISTIAN L. v. TUCKER, LAURA S.

125 A.D.3d 1273, 999 N.Y.S.2d 778

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 2015·No. CAF 13-01327·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Salvatore Pavone, R.), entered May 16, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns visitation is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order granting the petition seeking modification of a prior order of custody for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We note only that a subsequent order of the same court, entered July 22, 2014, which modified the provisions regarding visitation, has rendered moot the contention of respondent mother that the court erred in failing to provide her with more extensive visitation (see Matter of Kirkpatrick v Kirkpatrick, 117 AD3d 1575, 1576 [2014]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and DeJoseph, 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, Onondaga County (Salvatore Pavone, R.), entered May 16, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns visitation is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order granting the petition seeking modification of a prior order of custody for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We note only that a subsequent order of the same court, entered July 22, 2014, which modified the provisions regarding visitation, has rendered moot the contention of respondent mother that the court erred in failing to provide her with more extensive visitation (see Matter of Kirkpatrick v Kirkpatrick, 117 AD3d 1575, 1576 [2014]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

JONES, CHRISTIAN L. v. TUCKER, LAURA S., 125 A.D.3d 1273, 999 N.Y.S.2d 778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

125 A.D.3d 1273 (JONES, CHRISTIAN L. v. TUCKER, LAURA S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related