Matter of Matt J.F. v Billie L.F.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matt J.F. v Billie L.F. 2015 NY Slip Op 02609 Decided on March 27, 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 March 27, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
304 CAF 14-00642

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF MATT J.F., SR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

BILLIE L.F., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered March 18, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. The order directed the parties and their marital child to submit to a genetic marker test.



FERN S. ADELSTEIN, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

DARRYL R. BLOOM, OLEAN, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FREDONIA.



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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, petitioner father appeals from an order directing the parties and their marital child to submit to a genetic marker test. While this appeal was pending, respondent mother commenced her own paternity proceeding. Family Court ordered a genetic marker test, to which the father did not object, it was determined that the father is the biological father of the subject child, and an order of filiation was entered. We therefore conclude that this appeal has been rendered moot and that, contrary to the contention of the father, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp . v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: March 27, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.