Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the father's appeal is dismissed)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Pine v. Kirk

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
600 CAF 25-00385
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05630
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 4, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Family Court: the petition for modification of custody.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the father's appeal is dismissed)

TL;DR

  1. 1A father tried to change the custody order for his child.
  2. 2The court the father's petition when the child turned 18.
  3. 3Since the child is now an adult, the appeal no longer applies.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Is the appeal still valid since the child is now 18?

    Holding · The court ruled the appeal is moot and cannot proceed.

Why it matters

This affects custody cases as they must be addressed before a child reaches adulthood.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Father appeals custody ruling but child is now an adult. What happens next?

  1. 1A father sought to change the custody arrangement for his child in Family Court.
  2. 2The court dismissed his petition because the child turned 18 while the case was pending.
  3. 3Now that the child is legally an adult, the appeal is considered moot. This means it can't affect custody anymore.

Should the father's appeal to change custody be allowed even after the child turned 18?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Pine

  • Appellee

    Kirk

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Pine v Kirk 2026 NY Slip Op 05630 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 STEPHEN C. PINE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v JEAN M. KIRK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 600 CAF 25-00385 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ. CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Seneca County (Barry L. Porsch, J.), entered February 3, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for modification of an order of custody and visitation with respect to the subject child. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: In these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from orders dismissing his petitions seeking to modify a prior order of custody. Inasmuch as the child who is the subject of these proceedings has reached the age of 18 during the pendency of the appeals, the appeals are moot (see Matter of McDuffie v Coleman [appeal No. 1], 250 AD3d 1575, 1575 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied — NY3d — [2026]; Matter of Richter v Richter, 187 AD3d 1592, 1592-1593 [4th Dept 2020]). Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener