Walker v. Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Adams

31 A.D.3d 1018, 817 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedJuly 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 1018 (Walker v. Adams) 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

Walker v. Adams, 31 A.D.3d 1018, 817 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered May 13, 2005 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.

Fetitioner’s application for modification of a custody and visitation order was dismissed, without prejudice, for his failure to comply with a pretrial scheduling order. He appealed, but in the interim, respondent filed another petition for modification of custody and visitation and petitioner filed a cross petition seeking the same relief. In February 2006, on consent, a custody and visitation order was entered, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P., 309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]; Matter of Siberio v Siberio, 208 AD2d 994, 994 [1994]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, 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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered May 13, 2005 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.

Fetitioner’s application for modification of a custody and visitation order was dismissed, without prejudice, for his failure to comply with a pretrial scheduling order. He appealed, but in the interim, respondent filed another petition for modification of custody and visitation and petitioner filed a cross petition seeking the same relief. In February 2006, on consent, a custody and visitation order was entered, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P., 309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]; Matter of Siberio v Siberio, 208 AD2d 994, 994 [1994]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 1018, 817 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-adams-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack