Matter of Rosa M. v. Francisco P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Rosa M. v. Francisco P.

2017 NY Slip Op 4394, 151 A.D.3d 451, 53 N.Y.S.3d 525

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

DecidedJune 6, 2017

Docket4171

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4394 (Matter of Rosa M. v. Francisco P.) 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 Rosa M. v. Francisco P., 2017 NY Slip Op 4394, 151 A.D.3d 451, 53 N.Y.S.3d 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about February 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, modified a visitation order to provide for overnight visitation with the parties’ child every Wednesday until April 14, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The temporary visitation order is not an order of disposition and thus not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Holtzman v Holtzman, 47 AD2d 620 [1st Dept 1975]), and we decline to review it (see id.). Moreover, the appeal is moot, as the temporary order has already expired (see Matter of Sasha B. [Erica B.], 73 AD3d 587, 587 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 755 [2011]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Ref.), entered on or about February 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, modified a visitation order to provide for overnight visitation with the parties’ child every Wednesday until April 14, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The temporary visitation order is not an order of disposition and thus not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Holtzman v Holtzman, 47 AD2d 620 [1st Dept 1975]), and we decline to review it (see id.). Moreover, the appeal is moot, as the temporary order has already expired (see Matter of Sasha B. [Erica B.], 73 AD3d 587, 587 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 16 NY3d 755 [2011]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4394, 151 A.D.3d 451, 53 N.Y.S.3d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-rosa-m-v-francisco-p-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack