| Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07090 [43 AD3d 1284] |
| September 28, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Kristine Z., Respondent, v Anthony C., Appellant.(Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] Joseph G. Nesser, Law Guardian, Rochester, for Andrea C., Solomon C. and AlexeiC.
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, insofaras appealed from, denied respondent unsupervised visitation.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissedwithout costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 8 alleging that respondent father had committed an act that would constitute harassment inthe second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Family Court granted the petition and issuedan order of protection that, inter alia, awarded the father supervised visitation for one hour perweek 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 protectionbut concluded that the provision permitting visitation as the children desire " 'tend[ed]unnecessarily to defeat the right of visitation' " (id.). We therefore vacated the visitationprovisions 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 forone hour per week and for "such other and further supervised visitation as the parties mutuallyagree." The father appeals from that order as well as the order of protection effectuating thatorder.
The order of protection expired by its own terms on September 23, 2006, and thus anydecision with respect to the father's contentions on appeal, which concern only the visitationprovisions of the order of protection, "will not, at this juncture, directly affect the rights andinterests of the parties" (Matter of Gansburg v Gansburg, 127 AD2d 766, 766 [1987]).The appeals from the orders therefore are dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rochester v Rochester, 26 AD3d 387 [2006]; Matter of Schreiber v Schreiber, 2AD3d 1094, 1095 [2003]; Matter of Dean v Dean, 208 AD2d [*2]1030 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra,Green and Pine, JJ.