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: LAURA M. SCHULTZ, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. KARL F. SCHULTZ, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THOMAS A. DEUSCHLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WEST SENECA.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion to dismiss the amended petition is denied, the amended petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a hearing on the amended petition.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from orders dismissing her violation petition (appeal No. 1), granting the motion of respondent father to dismiss the amended violation petition (appeal No. 2), and dismissing the amended violation petition (appeal No. 3). We dismiss the appeal from the order in appeal No. 1 because the amended petition superseded the original petition (see Matter of Stewart v. Zigmant [appeal No. 1], 198 A.D.2d 883, 883; see also Preston v. APCH, Inc., 89 AD3d 65, 69). With respect to appeals No. 2 and 3, we agree with the mother that Family Court erred in dismissing her amended petition without a hearing “inasmuch as the [amended] petition alleges sufficient factual and legal grounds to establish a violation of [a] prior order” (Matter of Warrior v. Beatman, 79 AD3d 1770, 1770–1771, lv denied 16 NY3d 819; see Matter of Lisa B.I. v. Carl D.I., 46 AD3d 1451, 1451; Matter of Zelodius C. v. Danny L., 39 AD3d 320, 320). Moreover, we note that the father's submissions in support of his motion to dismiss do not address all of the allegations in the mother's amended petition. In light of our determination, we do not consider the mother's remaining contention.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 12–01066
Decided: June 14, 2013
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)