From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Thomas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

06-30-2017

In the Matter of Lahni THOMAS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Geoffrey THOMAS, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).

Chaffee & Linder, PLLC, Bath (Ruth A. Chaffee of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth deV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent. Joan Merry, Attorney for the Children, Hornell.


Chaffee & Linder, PLLC, Bath (Ruth A. Chaffee of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.

D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth deV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.

Joan Merry, Attorney for the Children, Hornell.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, and SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In appeal No. 1, petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that dismissed her petition brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent-petitioner father violated an order of protection. We reject the mother's contention that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition. According the requisite deference to the court's credibility determinations with respect to the parties' witnesses at the hearing (see Matter of Schoenl v. Schoenl, 136 A.D.3d 1361, 1362, 25 N.Y.S.3d 482 ), we conclude that the court properly determined that the mother failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father violated the terms of the order of protection (see Matter of Lanzafame v. Jones, 121 A.D.3d 1598, 1598, 992 N.Y.S.2d 920, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 145026 ).

In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order that, among other things, denied her petition seeking permission to relocate with the parties' children from Hornell to Buffalo. While these consolidated appeals were pending, the parties filed additional modification petitions and, after a hearing, the court issued an order that newly resolved the custody and visitation issues with respect to the children. We conclude that the superseding order renders appeal No. 2 moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Pugh v. Richardson, 138 A.D.3d 1423, 1423–1424, 29 N.Y.S.3d 207 ; Matter of Trombley v. Payne, 133 A.D.3d 1252, 1252, 18 N.Y.S.3d 912 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Thomas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Thomas v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Lahni THOMAS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Geoffrey THOMAS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 30, 2017

Citations

151 A.D.3d 1919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
151 A.D.3d 1919

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Thomas

Joan Merry, Attorney for the Children, Hornell.Same memorandum as in Matter of Thomas v. Thomas (Appeal No.…

Shilo v. Shilo

While this appeal was pending, Family Court entered an order upon consent of the parties that modified the…