Wilson v. Thomas

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

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

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).

289 A.D.2d 1033 (Wilson v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
409 N.E.2d 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Lee v. Lee
221 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Bragman v. Bragman
288 A.D.2d 172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)