IN RE: Maurice Jason Ovid THOMAS (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ayesha K. Brantley, J.), dated August 9, 2019.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted those branches of the father's petitions which were for sole legal custody of the parties’ children.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal’ ” (Matter of Raven K. [Adam C.], 130 A.D.3d 622, 623, 13 N.Y.S.3d 469, quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).  “Under the mootness doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from considering questions ‘which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances.  In general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment’ ” (id., quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).

Here, since the order dated August 9, 2019, was issued, the Family Court issued a modified order of custody dated February 16, 2024, which awarded sole legal custody of the parties’ children to the mother.  Thus, the mother's appeal from the order dated August 9, 2019, granting those branches of the father's petitions which were for sole legal custody of the children, was rendered academic by the February 16, 2024 order (see Matter of Sanchez v. Urrutia, 198 A.D.3d 974, 152 N.Y.S.3d 915;  Matter of McKeever v. Sclafani, 194 A.D.3d 938, 939, 143 N.Y.S.3d 917;  Matter of Raven K. [Adam C.], 130 A.D.3d at 624, 13 N.Y.S.3d 469).  In addition, this case does not warrant invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876;  Matter of Raven K. [Adam C.], 130 A.D.3d at 624, 13 N.Y.S.3d 469).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.