SMITH, SHANTELLE v. CASHAW, ANDRE R.

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 12, 2015
• Docket: CAF 14-00201
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

776 CAF 14-00201 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SHANTELLE SMITH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDRE R. CASHAW, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JENNIFER Z. BLACKHALL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CHEEKTOWAGA.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered June 25, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: These consolidated appeals arise from a series of proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in which the parties sought, inter alia, an order resolving custody and visitation issues with respect to their daughter. We take judicial notice of the fact that, while these appeals were pending, the parties filed further petitions seeking modification of the two orders on appeal. An order resolving, among other things, custody and visitation issues with respect to the subject child, was thereafter entered upon consent of the parties, thereby rendering these appeals moot (see Matter of Salo v Salo, 115 AD3d 1368, 1368; Matter of Justeen T., 17 AD3d 1148, 1148). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court