Osmundson v. Held-Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osmundson v. Held-Cummings

20 A.D.3d 922, 799 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7430

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered September 22, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

[923]*923Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition seeking modification of two visitation orders with respect to one of his daughters. That daughter is now 18 years of age, however, and thus the appeal must be dismissed as moot. “The right to visitation is an incident of custody and is . . . extinguished when a child reaches the age of majority” (People ex rel. Minardi v Cesnavicius, 208 AD2d 663, 664 [1994]; see Domestic Relations Law § 2; see also Anastasia v Anastasia, 100 AD2d 740 [1984]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered September 22, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

[923]*923Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition seeking modification of two visitation orders with respect to one of his daughters. That daughter is now 18 years of age, however, and thus the appeal must be dismissed as moot. “The right to visitation is an incident of custody and is . . . extinguished when a child reaches the age of majority” (People ex rel. Minardi v Cesnavicius, 208 AD2d 663, 664 [1994]; see Domestic Relations Law § 2; see also Anastasia v Anastasia, 100 AD2d 740 [1984]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Osmundson v. Held-Cummings, 20 A.D.3d 922, 799 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

20 A.D.3d 922 (Osmundson v. Held-Cummings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related