Majority
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chenango County (Revoir, J.), entered May 22, 2015, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the divorced parents of four children, including the subject child (born in 2006). When the parties initially separated, they agreed to a joint custody arrangement, with the mother having primary physical custody. Shortly thereafter, in September 2010, after the mother relocated to Connecticut, the parties stipulated to continued joint custody, with the
With his brief, the attorney for the child has provided this Court with Family Court’s March 24, 2016 “Final Custody Order,” issued on consent, by which the court granted primary physical custody of the subject child to the mother, with the proviso that the order would be held in abeyance until August 2016 and set aside if the father complied with the directive, once again, to obtain Medicaid insurance, counseling and dental care for the child. The court specified that “[t]his custody order shall replace all other custody [o]rders of this Court.” It follows that this appeal is moot and, since the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply, the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Charles EE. v Hanna FF., 141 AD3d 754 , 755 [2016]; Matter of Attorney for the Child v Cole, 140 AD3d 1335 , 1336 [2016]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose arid Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
* The father failed to file a brief on this appeal.
Cases cited
- Charles EE. v. Hanna FF. 141 AD3d 754 at 755 p. 1205
- Attorney for the Child v. Cole 140 AD3d 1335 at 1336 p. 1205