Opinion
966 CAF 20-00166
01-28-2022
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH R. ANDREWS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. AUTUMN APPLEGATE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. GARY MULDOON, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
GARY MULDOON, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Seneca County (Barry L. Porsch, J.), entered January 21, 2020 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted the petitioner therapeutic visitation.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order of custody and visitation by awarding the father therapeutically supervised visitation with the subject child. While this appeal was pending, Family Court entered an order upon the consent of the parties that resolved custody and visitation issues with respect to the subject child. We conclude that the superseding order renders this appeal moot (see Matter of Warren v Hibbs, 136 A.D.3d 1306, 1306 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 909 [2016]; Matter of Salo v Salo, 115 A.D.3d 1368, 1368 [4th Dept 2014]). We further conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).
All concur except DeJoseph, J., who is not participating.