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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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, 24 N.Y.S.3d 551 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 909, 2016 WL 3248620 [2016] ; Matter of Salo v. Salo , 115 A.D.3d 1368, 1368, 982 N.Y.S.2d 805 [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, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).
All concur except DeJoseph, J., who is not participating.