Opinion
331 CAF 19–00143
03-20-2020
In the Matter of Trondell WALLACE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Madaria EURE, Respondent–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, BALDWINSVILLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
CATHERINE M. SULLIVAN, BALDWINSVILLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner father's amended petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child. Even assuming, arguendo, that the order on appeal was not properly entered on the mother's default, we note that while this appeal was pending, Family Court entered an order upon the consent of the parties that continued custody with the father while granting the mother specific periods of visitation, including multiple nights of overnight visitation each week, thereby effectively superseding the order on appeal and rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Dawley v. Dawley [Appeal No. 2], 144 A.D.3d 1501, 1502, 40 N.Y.S.3d 863 [4th Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Biasutto v. Biasutto, 75 A.D.3d 671, 672, 904 N.Y.S.2d 548 [3d Dept. 2010] ; cf. Matter of Christopher Y. v. Sheila Z., 173 A.D.3d 1396, 1397, 105 N.Y.S.3d 562 [3d Dept. 2019] ). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Dawley, 144 A.D.3d at 1502, 40 N.Y.S.3d 863 ; 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] ).