Grimes v. Medero

• Decision Date: 10 November 2022
• Docket Number: 765 CAF 21-01615
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06362
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF KRISTEN M. GRIMES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. FELIX A. MEDERO, JR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2022 NY Slip Op 06362

IN THE MATTER OF KRISTEN M. GRIMES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. FELIX A. MEDERO, JR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

No. 765 CAF 21-01615

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

November 10, 2022

ALEXANDER KOROTKIN, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ELIZABETH D. TAFFE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Yates County (Jason L. Cook, J.), entered July 28, 2021 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner's objections to an order of the Support Magistrate.

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, petitioner mother appeals from an order denying her written objections to an order of the Support Magistrate, which dismissed her petition for modification of her child support obligation. During the pendency of this appeal, the subject child turned 21 years old and, therefore, the mother's obligation to pay child support ceased (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [a]; Matter of Milano v Anderson, 192 A.D.3d 1668, 1669 [4th Dept 2021]). Moreover, even if the mother succeeded on this appeal, she "would have no avenue to regain any sums [s]he might have overpaid in child support" (Matter of Frederick-Kane v Potter, 187 A.D.3d 1436, 1436 [3d Dept 2020]). "[T]here is a 'strong public policy against restitution or recoupment of support overpayments'" (Johnson v Chapin, 12 N.Y.3d 461, 466 [2009], rearg denied 13 N.Y.3d 888 [2009]), and we conclude that there is "no basis to depart from that policy here" (Frederick-Kane, 187 A.D.3d at 1437). Under the circumstances of this case," 'the rights of the parties will [not] be directly affected by the determination of [this] appeal'" (id., quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714 [1980]). We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot (see Milano, 192 A.D.3d at 1669).