Matter of Smith v Cashaw

Matter of Smith v Cashaw 2015 NY Slip Op 05057 Decided on June 12, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 12, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
776 CAF 14-00201

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF SHANTELLE SMITH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

ANDRE R. CASHAW, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered June 25, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JENNIFER Z. BLACKHALL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CHEEKTOWAGA.

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

Memorandum: These consolidated appeals arise from a series of proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in which the parties sought, inter alia, an order resolving custody and visitation issues with respect to their daughter. We take judicial notice of the fact that, while these appeals were pending, the parties filed further petitions seeking modification of the two orders on appeal. An order resolving, among other things, custody and visitation issues with respect to the subject child, was thereafter entered upon consent of the parties, thereby rendering these appeals moot (see Matter of Salo v Salo, 115 AD3d 1368, 1368; Matter of Justeen T., 17 AD3d 1148, 1148). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: June 12, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court