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: LAHNI THOMAS, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. GEOFFREY THOMAS, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOAN MERRY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, HORNELL.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that dismissed her petition brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent-petitioner father violated an order of protection. We reject the mother's contention that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition. According the requisite deference to the court's credibility determinations with respect to the parties' witnesses at the hearing (see Matter of Schoenl v. Schoenl, 136 AD3d 1361, 1362), we conclude that the court properly determined that the mother failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father violated the terms of the order of protection (see Matter of Lanzafame v. Jones, 121 AD3d 1598, 1598, lv denied 24 NY3d 913).
In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order that, among other things, denied her petition seeking permission to relocate with the parties' children from Hornell to Buffalo. While these consolidated appeals were pending, the parties filed additional modification petitions and, after a hearing, the court issued an order that newly resolved the custody and visitation issues with respect to the children. We conclude that the superseding order renders appeal No. 2 moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Pugh v. Richardson, 138 AD3d 1423, 1423–1424; Matter of Trombley v. Payne, 133 AD3d 1252, 1252).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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 15–01624
Decided: June 30, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)