Back to feedAnalyzed Oct 4, 2026
(father's appeal is dismissed as moot)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal
Matter of Staie v. Davidson
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Decided
- Oct 2, 2026
- Docket
- 605 CAF 25-01546
- Judges
- Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05634
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary
AI breakdown
Where this case stands
Family Court: awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child.
This decision · Appeal
(father's appeal is dismissed as moot)
TL;DR
- 1The father appealed a that granted the mother sole custody of their child.
- 2Since then, they reached a new agreement for , making the father's appeal moot.
- 3The court ruled that there was no ongoing issue to decide, so the appeal was .
Key issues
- 1
Is the father's appeal still valid after the new custody agreement?
Holding · The court found the appeal moot because a new custody arrangement had been made.
Why it matters
This decision highlights how updated agreements can affect ongoing legal appeals in custody cases.
If you were the judge?
Father appeals custody decision, but a new agreement complicates things
- 1A father wanted to challenge a custody order that gave the child's mother sole custody.
- 2While the appeal was underway, both parents agreed to share custody of the child.
- 3Now the court must decide if the father's appeal is still worthwhile given the new custody arrangement.
Is the father's custody appeal still valid after the new agreement?
Parties
Appellant
Matter of Staie
Appellee
Davidson
Roles are inferred from the case caption.
Opinion of the court
Matter of Staie v Davidson
2026 NY Slip Op 05634
October 2, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
IN THE MATTER OF ERIK C. STAIE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v
JESSICA L. DAVIDSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. ----------------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF JESSICA L. DAVIDSON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
ERIK C. STAIE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on October 2, 2026
605 CAF 25-01546
Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.
TODD G. MONAHAN, LITTLE FALLS, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
KIMBERLY A. WOOD, WATERTOWN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Anthony M. Neddo, J.), entered August 18, 2025, in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded respondent-petitioner Jessica L. Davidson sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.
[*1]
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner-respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order of custody and visitation by granting respondent-petitioner mother sole custody and primary physical residence of the parties' younger child, with visitation to the father. While this appeal was pending, Family Court entered an order upon the consent of the parties that, inter alia, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the younger child, with primary physical custody to the father and visitation to the mother. We conclude that the superseding order renders this appeal moot (see Matter of Andrews v Applegate, 201 AD3d 1332, 1332 [4th Dept 2022]; Matter of Warren v Hibbs, 136 AD3d 1306, 1306 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 909 [2016]; Matter of Salo v Salo, 115 AD3d 1368, 1368 [4th Dept 2014]). We further conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Andrews, 201 AD3d at 1332;
Warren, 136 AD3d at 1306; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).
Entered: October 2, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court