Pedro A. v. Susan M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pedro A. v. Susan M.

95 A.D.3d 458, 942 N.Y.S.2d 869

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

DecidedMay 3, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 458 (Pedro A. v. Susan M.) 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

Pedro A. v. Susan M., 95 A.D.3d 458, 942 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2011, which granted petitioner father final custody of the subject child, and provided respondent mother with visitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The challenged order was rendered academic when it was superseded by a subsequent order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about May 24, 2011 (see Matter of Breeyanna S., 45 AD3d 498 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008]; Matter of Jabarry W., 24 AD3d 218, 219 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]), from which no appeal was taken. Moreover, the record is clear that the mother defaulted on the date set for the fact-finding hearing. No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see Matter of Anita L. v Damon N., 54 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]; Matter of Miguel R. v Wilda C., 74 AD3d 631 [2010]).

Were we to consider the mother’s appeal, we would find that the court had sufficient information to support its determination that it was in the best interests of the child for the child to remain in the custody of the father, with visitation by the mother (see Matter of Reynaldo M. v Violet F., 88 AD3d 531 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

— Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2011, which granted petitioner father final custody of the subject child, and provided respondent mother with visitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The challenged order was rendered academic when it was superseded by a subsequent order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about May 24, 2011 (see Matter of Breeyanna S., 45 AD3d 498 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008]; Matter of Jabarry W., 24 AD3d 218, 219 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]), from which no appeal was taken. Moreover, the record is clear that the mother defaulted on the date set for the fact-finding hearing. No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see Matter of Anita L. v Damon N., 54 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]; Matter of Miguel R. v Wilda C., 74 AD3d 631 [2010]).

Were we to consider the mother’s appeal, we would find that the court had sufficient information to support its determination that it was in the best interests of the child for the child to remain in the custody of the father, with visitation by the mother (see Matter of Reynaldo M. v Violet F., 88 AD3d 531 [2011]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 458, 942 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-a-v-susan-m-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack