Opinion
No. 165 SSM 11.
Decided June 15, 2010.
APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 11, 2009. The Appellate Division, modified, on the facts, so much of an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), as had granted a motion by plaintiff for pendente lite relief in the form of monthly payments of $20,000 to maintain an apartment for plaintiff and the children, $7,000 in temporary child support, and $2,500 in temporary maintenance, as well as the cost of the children's private school tuition, child care and nursery school expenses, after-school and extracurricular activities, books, supplies, camp and travel expenses, the children's medical, therapy, dental and pharmacological costs, and the family medical insurance premiums. The modification consisted of ordering defendant to pay the actual monthly cost of the apartment in which plaintiff and the children presently reside in lieu of $20,000 per month to maintain an apartment. The Appellate Division affirmed the order as modified. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which modified in part the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"
Following the entry of the Appellate Division order, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Ayoub v Ayoub, 63 AD3d 493, appeal dismissed.
Mauro Goldberg hilling, Great Neck ( Matthew W. Naparty, Robert A. Ross and Richard J. Montes of counsel), for appellant.
Leitner Getz LLP, New York City ( Gregory J. Getz and Jerome M. Leitner of counsel), for respondent.
Cohen Hennessey Bienstock Rabin PC., New York City ( Harriet Newman Cohen of counsel), Law Guardian.
Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES.
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), appeal dismissed, without costs. Under the circumstances of this case, the parties' settlement agreement subsequent to the Appellate Division order rendered the appeal to this Court moot. We decline appellant's request to invoke the mootness exception.