Kratzok v. Kratzok

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kratzok v. Kratzok

248 A.D.2d 384, 669 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 384 (Kratzok v. Kratzok) 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

Kratzok v. Kratzok, 248 A.D.2d 384, 669 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 12, 1996, which denied his application to modify the mother’s visitation with the parties’ minor child.

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

On or about July 25, 1997, the parties entered into a stipulation in their visitation dispute, which was placed on the record and incorporated in an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered on the same date. In view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is academic. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 12, 1996, which denied his application to modify the mother’s visitation with the parties’ minor child.

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

On or about July 25, 1997, the parties entered into a stipulation in their visitation dispute, which was placed on the record and incorporated in an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered on the same date. In view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is academic. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 384, 669 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kratzok-v-kratzok-nyappdiv-1998.