Williamson v. Williamson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williamson v. Williamson

255 A.D.2d 447, 682 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12384

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 447 (Williamson v. Williamson) 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

Williamson v. Williamson, 255 A.D.2d 447, 682 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of the petitioner’s child, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.), dated October 20, 1997, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

On June 9, 1998, during the pendency of this appeal, the District Court of Bexar County in Texas awarded the petitioner custody of the subject child and the child returned to New York with the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner’s appeal is academic. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of the petitioner’s child, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.), dated October 20, 1997, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

On June 9, 1998, during the pendency of this appeal, the District Court of Bexar County in Texas awarded the petitioner custody of the subject child and the child returned to New York with the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner’s appeal is academic. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 447, 682 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-williamson-nyappdiv-1998.