Lazaro v. Lazaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazaro v. Lazaro

227 A.D.2d 402, 642 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868

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

DecidedMay 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 402 (Lazaro v. Lazaro) 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

Lazaro v. Lazaro, 227 A.D.2d 402, 642 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 26, 1994, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated September 23, 1994, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of the mother to modify an order of custody of the same court (Cognetta, J.), dated January 27, 1992, and awarded her custody of the parties’ son.

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

The parties’ 18-year-old son, having attained the age of majority, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see, Domestic Relations Law § 2; Belsky v Belsky, 172 AD2d 576). The issues raised on appeal are therefore academic (see, Reich v Reich, 149 AD2d 676). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 26, 1994, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated September 23, 1994, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of the mother to modify an order of custody of the same court (Cognetta, J.), dated January 27, 1992, and awarded her custody of the parties’ son.

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

The parties’ 18-year-old son, having attained the age of majority, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see, Domestic Relations Law § 2; Belsky v Belsky, 172 AD2d 576). The issues raised on appeal are therefore academic (see, Reich v Reich, 149 AD2d 676). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 402, 642 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazaro-v-lazaro-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack