Opinion
11-10-2016
In the Matter of Kristin M. DAWLEY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Sean T. DAWLEY, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.).
Paul B. Watkins, Fairport, for Petitioner–Appellant. Michelle M. Scuderi, Attorney for the Children, Watertown.
Paul B. Watkins, Fairport, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Michelle M. Scuderi, Attorney for the Children, Watertown.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:In appeal No. 2, petitioner mother appeals from an order that dismissed with prejudice her petition seeking to modify a prior consent order with respect to respondent father's visitation with the subject children. While this appeal was pending, Family Court entered an order upon the consent of the parties that resolved the relevant visitation issues, thereby rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Warren v. Hibbs, 136 A.D.3d 1306, 1306, 24 N.Y.S.3d 551, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 909, 2016 WL 3248620 ). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see id. ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).
The mother has not raised any contentions with respect to the order in appeal No. 1, and we therefore dismiss that appeal (see Abasciano v. Dandrea, 83 A.D.3d 1542, 1545, 924 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.