Genao-Archibald v. Archibald

173 N.Y.S.3d 880 (Mem)

In the Matter of Ramona GENAO–ARCHIBALD, et al., petitioners-respondents,

v.Mark C. ARCHIBALD II, respondent-respondent,Angelica Lee Flores, respondent-appellant (and other titles).

2021–04250, 2021–04251

(Docket Nos. V–2323–12, V–229–18, V–230–18, V–1708–19, V–1808–19)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—June 23, 2022

September 14, 2022

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, NY, for respondent-appellant.

Kim M. Rayner, Pearl River, NY, for petitioners-respondents.

Veronica J. Young, New City, NY, attorney for the child.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Keith J. Cornell, J.), dated April 22, 2021, and (2) an order of protection of the same court, also dated April 22, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, prohibited the mother from filing petitions for custody and/or visitation until October 22, 2021, and from filing petitions for visitation after October 22, 2021, without written leave of the court. The order of protection, insofar as appealed from, directed the mother to stay away from the subject child until April 22, 2022.

Motion by the grandparents, inter alia, to dismiss the appeals on the ground that they have been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 6, 2022, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeals on the ground that they have been rendered academic was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeals on the ground that they have been rendered academic is granted to the extent that the appeal from so much of the order as prohibited the mother from filing petitions for custody and/or visitation until October 22, 2021, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as prohibited the mother from filing petitions for visitation after October 22, 2021, without written leave of the court is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Court Act § 1112[a] ); and it is further, ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of protection is dismissed, without costs or...