Russo v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Russo

236 A.D.2d 412, 654 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 412 (Russo v. Russo) 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

Russo v. Russo, 236 A.D.2d 412, 654 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (De Phillips, J.), dated September 8, 1994, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ children to the mother and granted her leave to relocate to Connecticut.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of the instant appeal, the State of Con[413]*413necticut entered a judgment of divorce upon the father’s default which awarded the care and custody of the children to the mother. As the issue of custody was disposed of by the Connecticut court, the instant appeal is academic. The matter does not warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (De Phillips, J.), dated September 8, 1994, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ children to the mother and granted her leave to relocate to Connecticut.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of the instant appeal, the State of Con[413]*413necticut entered a judgment of divorce upon the father’s default which awarded the care and custody of the children to the mother. As the issue of custody was disposed of by the Connecticut court, the instant appeal is academic. The matter does not warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 412, 654 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-russo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack