Opinion
765 CAF 21-01615
11-10-2022
In the Matter of Kristen M. GRIMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felix A. MEDERO, Jr., Respondent-Respondent.
ALEXANDER KOROTKIN, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ELIZABETH D. TAFFE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
ALEXANDER KOROTKIN, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
JOHN P. BRINGEWATT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ELIZABETH D. TAFFE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, petitioner mother appeals from an order denying her written objections to an order of the Support Magistrate, which dismissed her petition for modification of her child support obligation. During the pendency of this appeal, the subject child turned 21 years old and, therefore, the mother's obligation to pay child support ceased (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [a] ; Matter of Milano v. Anderson , 192 A.D.3d 1668, 1669, 141 N.Y.S.3d 396 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Moreover, even if the mother succeeded on this appeal, she "would have no avenue to regain any sums [s]he might have overpaid in child support" ( Matter of Frederick-Kane v. Potter , 187 A.D.3d 1436, 1436, 134 N.Y.S.3d 552 [3d Dept. 2020] ). "[T]here is a ‘strong public policy against restitution or recoupment of support overpayments’ " ( Johnson v. Chapin , 12 N.Y.3d 461, 466, 881 N.Y.S.2d 373, 909 N.E.2d 66 [2009], rearg denied 13 N.Y.3d 888, 893 N.Y.S.2d 834, 921 N.E.2d 602 [2009] ), and we conclude that there is "no basis to depart from that policy here" ( Frederick-Kane , 187 A.D.3d at 1437, 134 N.Y.S.3d 552 ). Under the circumstances of this case, " ‘the rights of the parties will [not] be directly affected by the determination of [this] appeal’ " ( id. , quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne , 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ). We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot (see Milano , 192 A.D.3d at 1669, 141 N.Y.S.3d 396 ).