Mace v. Miller

93 A.D.3d 1086, 940 N.Y.S.2d 906
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 1086 (Mace v. Miller) 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
Mace v. Miller, 93 A.D.3d 1086, 940 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County (Breen, J.), entered August 18, 2010, which, among other things, partially granted petitioner’s application, in four proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Pursuant to a prior order of custody, petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) shared joint legal custody of their daughter, the father had primary physical custody and the mother had visitation on alternate weekends (see Matter of Miller v Mace, 74 AD3d 1442, 1442 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010]). Following a hearing on petitions filed by both parties, Family Court, among other things, increased the mother’s visitation to three weekends per month. The mother appeals.

We dismiss the appeal as moot. In May 2011, while the parties were in Family Court on a subsequent petition, they entered into a stipulation modifying their custody and visitation arrangement “in full satisfaction of all pending petitions and appeals . . . involving the parties and the subject child.” The stipulation stated that it “shall supercede all prior orders.” By the express terms of the stipulation, which was signed by the parties and counsel and so-ordered by Family Court, the mother waived her right to continue this appeal. Additionally, because the stipulation resulted in a new order that superceded the order being appealed, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Biasutto v Biasutto, 75 AD3d 671, 672 [2010]; Matter of Hall v Shannon, 59 AD3d 825 [2009]).

Spain, J.P., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Ramon U. v. Nicia V.
2018 NY Slip Op 4400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Mosier v. Cole
129 A.D.3d 1346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
SALO, CHRISTOPHER G. v. SALO, PATRICIA A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Salo v. Salo
115 A.D.3d 1368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Little v. Little
107 A.D.3d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Payne v. Valigorsky
105 A.D.3d 1220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.3d 1086, 940 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mace-v-miller-nyappdiv-2012.