Smith v. Cashaw

• Decision Date: 12 June 2015
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05057,129 A.D.3d 1551,9 N.Y.S.3d 899 (Mem)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of Shantelle SMITH, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Andre R. CASHAW, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).

129 A.D.3d 1551

9 N.Y.S.3d 899 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05057

In the Matter of Shantelle SMITH, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Andre R. CASHAW, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 12, 2015.

William D. Broderick, Jr., Elma, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Alan Birnholz, East Amherst, for Respondent–Respondent.

Jennifer Z. Blackhall, Attorney for the Child, Cheektowaga.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

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 A.D.3d 1368, 1368, 982 N.Y.S.2d 805 ; Matter of Justeen T., 17 A.D.3d 1148, 1148, 793 N.Y.S.2d 844 ). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).

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

SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.