Matter of De Oliveira v. De Oliveira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of De Oliveira v. De Oliveira

2017 NY Slip Op 5223, 151 A.D.3d 1062, 54 N.Y.S.3d 592

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

DecidedJune 28, 2017

Docket2015-09101

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5223 (Matter of De Oliveira v. De Oliveira) 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

Matter of De Oliveira v. De Oliveira, 2017 NY Slip Op 5223, 151 A.D.3d 1062, 54 N.Y.S.3d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Emily M. Martinez, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 18, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed with prejudice the father’s petition for visitation with the parties’ daughters.

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

The father’s appeal from the order denying his petition for visitation with the parties’ daughters must be dismissed as academic, since their daughters are now more than 18 years of age (see Matter of Julian B. v Williams, 97 AD3d 670, 670-671 [2012]; Matter of Bartley v Pringle, 90 AD3d 653 [2011]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Emily M. Martinez, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 18, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed with prejudice the father’s petition for visitation with the parties’ daughters.

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

The father’s appeal from the order denying his petition for visitation with the parties’ daughters must be dismissed as academic, since their daughters are now more than 18 years of age (see Matter of Julian B. v Williams, 97 AD3d 670, 670-671 [2012]; Matter of Bartley v Pringle, 90 AD3d 653 [2011]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5223, 151 A.D.3d 1062, 54 N.Y.S.3d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-de-oliveira-v-de-oliveira-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack