People ex rel. Field v. Cronshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Field v. Cronshaw

138 A.D.2d 654, 526 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 654 (People ex rel. Field v. Cronshaw) 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

People ex rel. Field v. Cronshaw, 138 A.D.2d 654, 526 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding seeking a change of child custody, Florence Cronshaw appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated April 14, 1987, which denied her motion to resettle or rescind that portion of the court’s prior order, also dated April 14, 1987, which restored the petition to the Trial Calendar and denied her access to certain confidential reports prepared by the Probation Department.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The hearing on the petitioner’s request for a change of custody of the parties’ daughter had not been completed at the time it was adjourned sine die by Justice Molloy. Therefore, it is clear from the record herein that the purported dismissal of the within matter by order of Justice Lockman dated July 10, 1985, was due to an administrative mistake or inadvertence.

The appellant’s contention that her right to due process has been violated by the court’s denial of access to the confidential reports of the Probation Department has become moot since the relief requested has been granted.

The other arguments which the appellant seeks to raise are not properly before us on this appeal. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding seeking a change of child custody, Florence Cronshaw appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated April 14, 1987, which denied her motion to resettle or rescind that portion of the court’s prior order, also dated April 14, 1987, which restored the petition to the Trial Calendar and denied her access to certain confidential reports prepared by the Probation Department.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The hearing on the petitioner’s request for a change of custody of the parties’ daughter had not been completed at the time it was adjourned sine die by Justice Molloy. Therefore, it is clear from the record herein that the purported dismissal of the within matter by order of Justice Lockman dated July 10, 1985, was due to an administrative mistake or inadvertence.

The appellant’s contention that her right to due process has been violated by the court’s denial of access to the confidential reports of the Probation Department has become moot since the relief requested has been granted.

The other arguments which the appellant seeks to raise are not properly before us on this appeal. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 654, 526 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-field-v-cronshaw-nyappdiv-1988.