F.K. v. K.F.
Docket Docket No. V-00062/22, V-00063/22, V-00123/22, V-00124/22|Appeal No. 6377|Case No. 2024-05838|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02336
- Docket numbers
- Docket NoV-00062/22, V-00063/22, V-00123/22, V-00124/22Appeal No6377Case No2024-05838
Appeal from a Supreme Court (Bronx County) order temporarily awarding physical custody to mother and visitation to father
Summary
The First Department dismissed as moot an appeal by a father challenging a Supreme Court Bronx County temporary custody order that gave physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father. The court granted the father's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California after concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise. The panel held the temporary visitation order was not an appealable final disposition under the Family Court Act and, in any event, the temporary order expired and has been superseded by later custody and visitation orders that were not appealed, rendering this appeal moot.
Issues Decided
- Whether the temporary order of visitation and custody is an appealable final disposition under Family Court Act § 1112(a)
- Whether the appeal is moot because the temporary order expired and was superseded by subsequent unappealed orders
- Whether appellate counsel could be permitted to withdraw under Anders v. California based on lack of nonfrivolous issues
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on precedent holding that temporary orders of visitation are not final appealable dispositions under Family Court Act § 1112(a). It also found the appeal moot because the challenged temporary order had expired and been superseded by later custody and visitation orders that were not appealed. Finally, after reviewing the record, the court concluded there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal and therefore granted counsel's Anders withdrawal.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Matter of Jodeci S. v Sheila M.240 AD3d 420 (1st Dept 2025)
- Matter of T.R. [Jaquasia G.]227 AD3d 530 (1st Dept 2024)
Parties
- Petitioner
- F.K.
- Respondent
- K.F.
- Attorney
- Larry S. Bachner
- Attorney
- Donna C. Chin (attorney for children)
- Judge
- Jessica I. Flores
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-16
- Order entered (Supreme Court)
- 2024-08-19
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about current orders
Speak with an attorney to review the current custody and visitation orders that have superseded the temporary order and assess whether any timely appealable issues remain.
- 2
Consider trial-court relief if needed
If the father seeks modification of custody or visitation, he should pursue relief in the trial court under applicable family law procedures.
- 3
If dissatisfied with appellate counsel withdrawal
If the father believes counsel should not have withdrawn or that there are viable appellate issues, he should promptly raise that with new counsel to explore any procedural remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court dismissed the father's appeal as moot and allowed his appellate lawyer to withdraw after finding no nonfrivolous issues to raise.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The parties to the family custody litigation, the father (appellant), the mother (respondent), and the children are affected because the temporary order challenged is no longer in effect.
- Why is the appeal moot?
- Because the temporary order that the father challenged expired and was replaced by later custody and visitation orders that were not appealed.
- Can the father still challenge custody or visitation?
- This decision only dismissed this particular appeal as moot; the father may have other avenues in the trial court or could appeal different, final orders if timely and appealable.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
F.K. v K.F. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02336 F.K. v K.F. 2026 NY Slip Op 02336 April 16, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department F.K., Petitioner-Appellant, v K.F. Respondent-Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 16, 2026 Docket No. V-00062/22, V-00063/22, V-00123/22, V-00124/22|Appeal No. 6377|Case No. 2024-05838| Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Rodriguez, Michael, JJ. Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Donna C. Chin, New York, attorney for children. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jessica I. Flores, J.), entered on or about August 19, 2024, which temporarily awarded physical custody of the subject children to respondent mother and provided petitioner father with visitation, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Application by the father's assigned attorney to withdraw as appellate counsel is granted ( see Anders v California , 386 US 738 [1967]). A review of the record demonstrates that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on this appeal. The temporary order of visitation is not an order of disposition within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1112 (a) and thus is not appealable as of right ( see Matter of Jodeci S. v Sheila M. , 240 AD3d 420, 420-421 [1st Dept 2025]; Matter of Rosa M. v Francisco P. , 151 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2017]). Furthermore, the appeal is moot as the temporary order has already expired and been superseded by subsequent orders of custody and visitation, none of which were appealed ( see Matter of T.R. [Jaquasia G.] , 227 AD3d 530, 530 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Rolando A.G. v Marisol R.M. , 172 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Crystal G. v Marquis E. , 170 AD3d 557, 557-558 [1st Dept 2019]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 16, 2026