| Matter of Field v Stamile |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05698 [85 AD3d 1164] |
| June 28, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David A. Field et al.,Appellants, v Margaret J. Stamile et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Joseph A. Hanshe, P.C., Sayville, N.Y., for respondent Margaret J. Stamile. Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent Melissa C. Stamile. Thomas Persichilli, Deer Park, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the paternalgrandparents appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Zimmerman, J.), datedNovember 23, 2010, which, without a hearing, dismissed their petition.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with one bill of costs.
The paternal grandparents filed a petition seeking visitation with their grandchild during theperiod of April 14, 2011, through April 26, 2011. The Family Court dismissed the petitionwithout a hearing on the ground that the paternal grandparents lacked standing to petition forvisitation. On appeal, the paternal grandparents contend, inter alia, that the Family Courtmisapprehended the law applicable to the determination of their standing.
The sole relief sought in the petition concerns a time period which has passed. Under themootness doctrine, courts are precluded from considering questions which, "although once live,have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances" when the rights of the partieswith respect to the controversy will no longer be "directly affected by the determination of theappeal" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see Matter ofLucinda R. [Tabitha L.], 85 AD3d 78, 83-84 [2011]). Nevertheless, the paternalgrandparents contend, in effect, that appellate review is allowed here under the exception to themootness doctrine for "important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively briefexistence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,50 NY2d at 714; see Matter of WilliamC., 64 AD3d 277, 282 [2009]). Contrary to this contention, where, as here, thegrandparents base standing upon equitable considerations involving an alleged interference withtheir relationship with the grandchild (see Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1];Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181 [1991]; Matter of Kalkstein v Rist, 78 AD3d947, 948 [2010]; Matter of Horowitz v Kelly, 300 AD2d 659 [2002]), the issue isnot likely to recur between the parties in the future in the same [*2]factual context, nor is the issue of grandparent standing a"substantial and novel" issue of law of statewide importance in need of clarification (cf.Matter of Lucinda R. [Tabitha L.], 85 AD3d at 84; Matter of William C., 64 AD3d at282). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Dickersonand Cohen, JJ., concur.