Opinion
CAF 18–00541 377
06-07-2019
In the Matter of Jamie CULLOP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jason MILLER, Respondent-Respondent.
SCOTT T. GODKIN, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. MICHAEL JOHNSON, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT. PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
SCOTT T. GODKIN, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing her petition seeking permission to relocate with the subject child from Oneida County to Onondaga County where, she proposed, they would live with a registered sex offender who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child. While this appeal was pending, Family Court entered a subsequent order that transferred primary physical residence of the subject child from the mother to respondent father. Inasmuch as the primary physical residence of the subject child is no longer with the mother, "any corrective measures which this Court might have taken with respect to the order appealed from would have no practical effect" ( Matter of Lateesha J., 252 A.D.2d 503, 503, 675 N.Y.S.2d 560 [2d Dept. 1998] ; see Matter of Jaxsin L. [Heather L.], 124 A.D.3d 1398, 1399, 2 N.Y.S.3d 307 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Tyler C. [Andrea G.], 82 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 919 N.Y.S.2d 344 [2d Dept. 2011] ). We therefore conclude that the subsequent order renders this appeal moot (see Matter of Warren v. Hibbs, 136 A.D.3d 1306, 1306, 24 N.Y.S.3d 551 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 909, 2016 WL 3248620 [2016] ; Matter of Salo v. Salo, 115 A.D.3d 1368, 1368, 982 N.Y.S.2d 805 [4th Dept. 2014] ), and we further conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (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] ). Consequently, we dismiss the appeal (see Matter of Pugh v. Richardson, 138 A.D.3d 1423, 1423–1424, 29 N.Y.S.3d 207 [4th Dept. 2016] ; Jaxsin L., 124 A.D.3d at 1399, 2 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; Matter of Alexander M. [Michael M.], 83 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 919 N.Y.S.2d 450 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 2535039 [2011] ).