Allison v. Seeley-Sick
| Decision Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1002,CAF 19-01696 |
| Citation | 199 A.D.3d 1490,158 N.Y.S.3d 480 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jason Paul ALLISON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Laura Ann SEELEY-SICK, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
199 A.D.3d 1490
158 N.Y.S.3d 480
In the Matter of Jason Paul ALLISON, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Laura Ann SEELEY-SICK, Respondent-Appellant.
1002
CAF 19-01696
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: November 19, 2021
HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (ALAN J. PIERCE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
WENDY S. SISSON, GENESEO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
EDWARD F. MURPHY, III, HAMMONDSPORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns visitation is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, respondent mother appeals from an order (August 2019 order) of Family Court (Cohen, J.) that, inter alia, granted petitioner father's petitions seeking, in effect, to modify a prior amended order (prior order) entered on consent by awarding him sole custody of the subject children, with supervised visitation to the mother.
Initially, we take judicial notice of the fact that, subsequent to the issuance of the August 2019 order on appeal, Family Court (Van Allen, J.) issued an order in December 2020 modifying the mother's visitation to supervised visitation in a therapeutic setting, but stating that all other provisions of the August 2019 order that were not modified by the December 2020 order remained in effect. We conclude that the part of the mother's appeal challenging the supervised visitation provision is moot (see Matter of Brooks v. Greene , 153 A.D.3d 1621, 1622, 61 N.Y.S.3d 403 [4th Dept. 2017] ), and we therefore dismiss the appeal from the August 2019 order insofar as it concerns visitation. However, contrary to the contention of the Attorney for the Child, that part of the mother's appeal challenging the determination to grant the father sole custody is not moot (see Matter of Fowler v. Rothman , 198 A.D.3d 1374, 1374-75, 156 N.Y.S.3d 618 [4th Dept. 2021] ; Brooks , 153 A.D.3d at 1622, 61 N.Y.S.3d 403 ).
With respect to the merits, we reject the mother's contention that the court (Cohen, J.) abused its discretion in refusing to recuse itself. "Absent a legal disqualification, ... a [j]udge is generally the sole arbiter of recusal" ( Matter of Murphy , 82 N.Y.2d 491, 495, 605 N.Y.S.2d 232, 626 N.E.2d 48 [1993] ; see People v. Glynn , 21 N.Y.3d 614, 618, 977 N.Y.S.2d 692, 999 N.E.2d 1137 [2013] ; Tripi v. Alabiso , 189 A.D.3d 2060, 2061, 134 N.Y.S.3d 843 [4th Dept. 2020] ), and it is well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Doe v. Female Acad. of the Sacred Heart
-
Livingston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Christopher R.N. (In re Nathan N.)
...established that a court's recusal decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Allison v. Seeley-Sick , 199 A.D.3d 1490, 1491, 158 N.Y.S.3d 480 [4th Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Moreno , 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405-406, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663......
-
In re Nathan N.
...ZZ. v Ashton B., 183 A.D.3d 1076, 1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Allison, 199 A.D.3d at 1491-1492). We perceive no abuse discretion by the court in denying respondents' recusal motion (see Tripi v Alabiso, 189 A.D.3d 2060, 2061 [4......
-
Cellino Law, LLP v. Looney Injury Law PLLC
...ZZ. v Ashton B., 183 A.D.3d 1076, 1081 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Allison, 199 A.D.3d at 1491-1492; see generally 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]). Thus, perceive no abuse of discretion by the court in denying defendants' motion insofar as ......