Shevlin v. Minas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shevlin v. Minas

253 A.D.2d 435, 675 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809

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

DecidedAugust 3, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 435 (Shevlin v. Minas) 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

Shevlin v. Minas, 253 A.D.2d 435, 675 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Andrew Minas appeals from a permanent order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.), entered September 26, 1995.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Although the order of protection has expired, we decline to dismiss the appeal as academic because “of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense” (Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767, 768; see also, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Monique W.] v Kim G., 240 AD2d 664). The Family Court erred in failing to conduct a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 832 and a dispositional hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 833 before issuing a permanent order of protection (see, Matter of Alice C. v Joseph C., 212 AD2d 698; Matter of Muldrew v Mixon, 237 AD2d 942). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Andrew Minas appeals from a permanent order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.), entered September 26, 1995.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Although the order of protection has expired, we decline to dismiss the appeal as academic because “of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense” (Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767, 768; see also, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Monique W.] v Kim G., 240 AD2d 664). The Family Court erred in failing to conduct a fact-finding hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 832 and a dispositional hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 833 before issuing a permanent order of protection (see, Matter of Alice C. v Joseph C., 212 AD2d 698; Matter of Muldrew v Mixon, 237 AD2d 942). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 435, 675 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shevlin-v-minas-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack