Matter of Kripfgans v. Kripfgans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Kripfgans v. Kripfgans

123 A.D.3d 930, 996 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2013-06000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 930 (Matter of Kripfgans v. Kripfgans) 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 Kripfgans v. Kripfgans, 123 A.D.3d 930, 996 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated May 30, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted, without a hearing, the father’s motion to dismiss the mother’s petition to modify the custody and visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties.

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

Since the subject child is now over 18 years of age, she is no longer subject to the order appealed from (see Matter of Pecchioni v Cusma, 119 AD3d 589, 590 [2014]; Matter of Cahill v Zakian, 71 AD3d 765, 765 [2010]; Matter of Merando v Vantassel, 66 AD3d 783, 784 [2009]; Belsky v Belsky, 172 AD2d 576, 576 [1991]; see also Matter of Fortunato v Murray, 91 AD3d 947, *931 948 [2012]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated May 30, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted, without a hearing, the father’s motion to dismiss the mother’s petition to modify the custody and visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties.

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

Since the subject child is now over 18 years of age, she is no longer subject to the order appealed from (see Matter of Pecchioni v Cusma, 119 AD3d 589, 590 [2014]; Matter of Cahill v Zakian, 71 AD3d 765, 765 [2010]; Matter of Merando v Vantassel, 66 AD3d 783, 784 [2009]; Belsky v Belsky, 172 AD2d 576, 576 [1991]; see also Matter of Fortunato v Murray, 91 AD3d 947, *931 948 [2012]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 930, 996 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kripfgans-v-kripfgans-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack