Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015

Smith v. Cashaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 12, 2015 · Dejoseph, Sconiers, Scudder, Smith, Valentino

129 A.D.3d 1551; 9 N.Y.S.3d 899

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

TROMBLEY, ROBERT E. v. PAYNE, KRISTIN S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Drew v. New (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Lown v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Common v. Pirro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Phalen v. Gorski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Smith v. Ballam (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Cashaw v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

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 [2014]; Matter of Justeen T., 17 AD3d 1148, 1148 [2005]). 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 [1980]).

Present— Scudder, P.J., Smith, Sconiers, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.