Kristine Z. v. Anthony C., 43 A.D.3d 1284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Kristine Z. v. Anthony C., 43 A.D.3d 1284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …will not, at this juncture, directly affect the rights and interests of the parties ✓
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rachel QQ. v. Jaime QQ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
As a result, the father's appeal from the order of protection has been rendered moot ( see Matter of Tina X. v Thomas Y. , 233 AD3d 1272 , 1276-1277 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rasool QQ. v. Rotisha PP. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Since the order of protection expired by its own terms on March 29, 2025, and the father does not challenge the family offense findings underlying such order, this argument is moot ( see Matter of Tina X. v Thomas Y. , 233 AD3d at 1276-1277; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tina X. v. Thomas Y. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Since the orders of protection expired by their own terms on September 1, 2024 ( see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]), and the mother does not challenge the family offense findings underlying such orders ( compare Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A. , 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015]; Matter of Zaytseva v Frazier , 214 AD3d 895, 896 [2d Dept 2023]; Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt , 97 AD3d 1112, 1113 [4th Dept 2012]), this argument is moot. [FN3] The mother's remaining contentions, to the extent not expressly addressed, have bee…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dhir v. Winslow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see generally Matter of Schultz v Schultz [appeal No. 2], 107 AD3d 1616, 1616 [4th Dept 2013]; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Azaria A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The appeal from that part of the order incorporating a temporary order of protection is moot, inasmuch as the temporary order has expired (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; Matter of Cadejah AA., 25 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Azaria A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The appeal from that part of the order incorporating a temporary order of protection is moot, inasmuch as the temporary order has expired (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; Matter of Cadejah AA., 25 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Langdon v. Langdon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection appealed from in appeal No. 2 has expired, and we therefore ordinarily would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Langdon v. Langdon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection appealed from in appeal No. 2 has expired, and we therefore ordinarily would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petrie v. Petrie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection has expired, and we thus generally would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petrie v. Petrie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection has expired, and we thus generally would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marquardt v. Marquardt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection issued in conjunction with the order on appeal has expired, and we thus generally would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marquardt v. Marquardt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the order of protection issued in conjunction with the order on appeal has expired, and we thus generally would dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" FINLAY, DANIEL v. GIDEON, HONORABLE DAVID S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, “any corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practical effect” (Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D., 47 AD3d 716, 716 ; see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284 , lv denied 10 NY3d 705 ).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Finlay v. Gideon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, “any corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practical effect” (Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D., 47 AD3d 716, 716 [2008]; see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Finlay v. Gideon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, “any corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practical effect” (Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D., 47 AD3d 716, 716 [2008]; see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284, 1284 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" M., ROMEO, MTR. OF
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We dismiss the mother’s appeals as moot inasmuch as the challenged order of protection has, by its terms, expired (see Matter of Justin CC., 86 AD3d 725, 726 ; see generally Matter of Sarah C.B., 91 AD3d 1282, 1283 ). “[A]ny corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practical effect” (Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D., 47 AD3d 716, 716 ; see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284 , lv denied 10 NY3d 705 ), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Justin CC., 86 AD3d at 726 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Cor…
discussed Cited "see" In re Romeo M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We dismiss the mother’s appeals as moot inasmuch as the challenged order of protection has, by its terms, expired (see Matter of Justin CC. [George CC. — Tina CC.], 86 AD3d 725, 726 [2011]; see generally Matter of Sarah C.B., 91 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2012]). “[A]ny corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practical effect” (Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D., 47 AD3d 716, 716 [2008]; see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 43 AD3d 1284 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Justin …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kristine Z.
v.
Anthony C.
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 28, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 1284
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Glenn R. Morton, J.H.O.), entered May 19, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied respondent unsupervised visitation.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent father had committed an act that would constitute harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Family. Court granted the petition and issued an order of protection that, inter alia, awarded the father supervised visitation for one hour per week and “ ‘as [the] children desire’ ” (Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C., 21 AD3d 1319, 1321 [2005], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 772 [2006]). On a prior appeal, we affirmed the order of protection but concluded that the provision permitting visitation as the children desire “ ‘tend[ed] unnecessarily to defeat the right of visitation’ ” (id.). We therefore vacated the visitation provisions to allow the court, upon remittal, “to fashion whatever visitation it deem[ed] appropriate” (id.).

On remittal, the court conducted a hearing, after which it ordered supervised visitation for one hour per week and for “such other and further supervised visitation as the parties mutually agree.” The father appeals from that order as well as the order of protection effectuating that order.

The order of protection expired by its own terms on September 23, 2006, and thus any decision with respect to the father’s contentions on appeal, which concern only the visitation provisions of the order of protection, “will not, at this juncture, directly affect the rights and interests of the parties” (Matter of Gansburg v Gansburg, 127 AD2d 766, 766 [1987]). The appeals[*1285] from the orders therefore are dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387 [2006]; Matter of Schreiber v Schreiber, 2 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2003]; Matter of Dean v Dean, 208 AD2d 1030 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.