Wilson v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Thomas

289 A.D.2d 1033, 735 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1033 (Wilson v. Thomas) 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

Wilson v. Thomas, 289 A.D.2d 1033, 735 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Because the provisions of the order entered June 16, 2000 that are challenged by petitioner on appeal, “have been reaffirmed by the subsequent, unappealed, order [entered August 28, 2000], the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by any determination regarding that prior order. Accordingly, the instant appeal is academic” (Bragman v Bragman, 288 AD2d 172; see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Lee v Lee, 221 AD2d 1017). The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. [1034]*1034v Clyne, supra, at 714-715). (Appeal from Order of Cattaraugus County Family Court, Nenno, J. — Contempt.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Because the provisions of the order entered June 16, 2000 that are challenged by petitioner on appeal, “have been reaffirmed by the subsequent, unappealed, order [entered August 28, 2000], the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by any determination regarding that prior order. Accordingly, the instant appeal is academic” (Bragman v Bragman, 288 AD2d 172; see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Lee v Lee, 221 AD2d 1017). The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. [1034]*1034v Clyne, supra, at 714-715). (Appeal from Order of Cattaraugus County Family Court, Nenno, J. — Contempt.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1033, 735 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack