Matter of Trombley v Payne

Annotate this Case
Matter of Trombley v Payne 2015 NY Slip Op 08296 Decided on November 13, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 13, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
1189 CAF 14-00520

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. TROMBLEY, JR., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

KRISTIN S. PAYNE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ———————————————————————-



IN THE MATTER OF KRISTIN S. PAYNE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V

v

ROBERT E. TROMBLEY, JR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



KELIANN M. ARGY, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

FARES A. RUMI, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROCHESTER.



Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered March 5, 2014 in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted sole custody of the subject children to Robert E. Trombley, Jr.

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

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed her cross petition seeking modification of a prior custody order and sole custody of the children. While this appeal was pending, the parties filed additional modification petitions and, after a hearing, Family Court issued an order continuing sole custody of the children with petitioner-respondent father and visitation with the mother. We conclude that this appeal is therefore moot (see Matter of Smith v Cashaw [appeal No. 1], 129 AD3d 1551, 1551; Matter of Morgia v Horning [appeal No. 1], 119 AD3d 1355, 1355; Matter of Kirkpatrick v Kirkpatrick, 117 AD3d 1575, 1576), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Smith, 129 AD3d at 1551; Kirkpatrick, 117 AD3d at 1576; see generally Matter

of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: November 13, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court