Outing v. Mathis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Outing v. Mathis

304 A.D.2d 670, 757 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3945

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 670 (Outing v. Mathis) 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

Outing v. Mathis, 304 A.D.2d 670, 757 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pessala, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which, after a hearing, determined that she did not have standing to maintain the proceeding, and dismissed the petition. Justice Florio has been substituted for the late Justice O’Brien (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order dated September 29, 1999, is vacated.

The courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a deceased person, as opposed to such a person’s personal representative (see Waldman v Mechanical Sys., 294 AD2d 354, 355 [2002]; EPTL 11-3.1). Here, this proceeding was commenced against a deceased person. Thus, the order appealed from is a nullity and must be vacated, and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal (see Waldman v Mechanical Sys., supra; Cocozzelli Lerner Meunkle & Grossman v Basile, 247 AD2d 354, 355 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Feuerstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pessala, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which, after a hearing, determined that she did not have standing to maintain the proceeding, and dismissed the petition. Justice Florio has been substituted for the late Justice O’Brien (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order dated September 29, 1999, is vacated.

The courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a deceased person, as opposed to such a person’s personal representative (see Waldman v Mechanical Sys., 294 AD2d 354, 355 [2002]; EPTL 11-3.1). Here, this proceeding was commenced against a deceased person. Thus, the order appealed from is a nullity and must be vacated, and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal (see Waldman v Mechanical Sys., supra; Cocozzelli Lerner Meunkle & Grossman v Basile, 247 AD2d 354, 355 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Feuerstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 670, 757 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outing-v-mathis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack