| Matter of Merando v Vantassel |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07417 [66 AD3d 783] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Carol Merando, Appellant, v ColleenVantassel, Respondent. |
—[*1] Norbert H. Brown, Jr., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondent. Tracy Cass MacKenzie, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In related visitation, guardianship, and custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Gilbert, Ct.Atty. Ref.), entered March 12, 2008, which denied her petition for custody of her minor child,granted the paternal grandmother's petition for guardianship of the child, and dismissed, asacademic, her petition to modify an existing order allowing visitation between the paternalgrandmother and the child.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
Since the child is now over 18 years of age, she is no longer subject to the order appealedfrom (see Matter of DelVecchio vDelVecchio, 64 AD3d 594 [2009]; Matter of McGovern v Lynch, 62 AD3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Luis A.-S., 33 AD3d793, 794 [2006]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Cruz v Cruz, 48 AD3d804, 805 [2008]; Matter of ZaimR., 43 AD3d 824 [2007]; Matter of Sassower-Berlin v Berlin, 31 AD3d 771 [2006]). Thematter does not qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp.v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Ronald N., 14 AD3d 567 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Florio,Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.