Rolston v. Decker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rolston v. Decker

94 A.D.3d 1264, 941 N.Y.S.2d 895

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), entered April 19, 2011, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Respondent Jessica L. Decker (hereinafter respondent) is the mother of a child (born in 2003) and petitioner is the paternal grandmother of the child. In September 2009, petitioner commenced a modification proceeding seeking primary physical custody of the child, which was granted in an order entered April 19, 2011. Respondent appeals.

Inasmuch as the parties entered into a February 2012 consent order that superceded the April 2011 order being appealed, this appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of Dickerson v Knox, 89 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2011]; Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2010]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), entered April 19, 2011, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Respondent Jessica L. Decker (hereinafter respondent) is the mother of a child (born in 2003) and petitioner is the paternal grandmother of the child. In September 2009, petitioner commenced a modification proceeding seeking primary physical custody of the child, which was granted in an order entered April 19, 2011. Respondent appeals.

Inasmuch as the parties entered into a February 2012 consent order that superceded the April 2011 order being appealed, this appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of Dickerson v Knox, 89 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2011]; Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2010]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Rolston v. Decker, 94 A.D.3d 1264, 941 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

94 A.D.3d 1264 (Rolston v. Decker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related