General
In the Matter of Steven Wilson, Respondent, v. Beverly Thomas, Appellant
289 A.D.2d 1033735 N.Y.S.2d 840·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2001·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Steven Wilson, Respondent, v Beverly Thomas, Appellant.
[735 NYS2d 840]
[MAJORITY]
Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Because the provisions of the order entered June 16, 2000 that are challenged by petitioner on appeal, “have been reaffirmed by the subsequent, unappealed, order [entered August 28, 2000], the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by any determination regarding that prior order. Accordingly, the instant appeal is academic” (Bragman v Bragman, 288 AD2d 172; see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Lee v Lee, 221 AD2d 1017). The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra, at 714-715). (Appeal from Order of Cattaraugus County Family Court, Nenno, J. — Contempt.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.