Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: AMBUR FORTNEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. LAVAUN RIVERS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
IN RE: AMBUR FORTNEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. DUSTIN MILLER, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
IN RE: AMBUR FORTNEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. LAVAUN RIVERS AND DUSTIN MILLER, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal from the order insofar as it concerns custody of the subject child is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother filed a petition seeking modification of an existing custody order and two separate petitions alleging that respondent father and respondent maternal grandmother, respectively, violated that custody order. The mother appeals from an order that, among other things, denied her modification petition in part and dismissed the violation petitions.
Initially, we dismiss as moot the appeal from the order insofar as it concerns custody of the subject child because a subsequent order has been entered rendering the mother's challenge with respect to the child moot (see Matter of Beavers v Beavers, 239 AD3d 1424, 1425 [4th Dept 2025]; Matter of Kirkpatrick v Kirkpatrick, 117 AD3d 1575, 1576 [4th Dept 2014]).
We reject the mother's contention that Family Court erred in dismissing the violation petitions and in refusing to find the father and the maternal grandmother in civil contempt of court for violating the existing custody order. We conclude that the mother failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements necessary to support a finding of civil contempt (see generally El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]).
Entered: November 21, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 788
Decided: November 21, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)