In re Anthony C.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06806,951 N.Y.S.2d 884,99 A.D.3d 798 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ANTHONY C. (Anonymous), appellant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Juan C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Anthony C. (Anonymous), appellant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Maria V. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Elizabeth M. Niemi, Amityville, N.Y., attorney for the child, the appellant Anthony C.
Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Margaret Schaefler, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent-respondent Juan C.
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for respondent—respondent Maria V.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Anthony C. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Loguercio, J.), dated January 21, 2011, as, without a hearing, directed that he be temporarily removed from the home during the pendency of the proceedings, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal must be dismissed, since the portion of the order that is appealed from, which directed the temporary removal of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, has been rendered academic, in light of a subsequent permanency order dated October 17, 2011, continuing the placement of the child, and the orders of disposition dated November 1, 2011 ( see Matter of Jovan W. v. Ticarrah W.P., 92 A.D.3d 888, 889, 939 N.Y.S.2d 863;Matter of Nicholas B., 26 A.D.3d 764, 811 N.Y.S.2d 235;Matter of Jabarry W., 24 A.D.3d 218, 219, 804 N.Y.S.2d 922;see also Matter of Javier R., 43 A.D.3d 1, 840 N.Y.S.2d 572). Contrary to the appellant's contention, this matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgess v. Burgess
...1052, 1052, 946 N.Y.S.2d 876 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d 791, 792, 938 N.Y.S.2d 601;[99 A.D.3d 798]Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896;Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d 663, 664, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187). “ ‘Abse......
-
In re Martha S., 327 CAF 13-01091
...dispositional order” (Matter of Joseph E.K. [Lithia K.], 118 A.D.3d 1324, 1324, 987 N.Y.S.2d 760 ; see Matter of Anthony C. [Juan C.], 99 A.D.3d 798, 799, 951 N.Y.S.2d 884 ; Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 950 N.Y.S.2d 918 ). To the extent that the mother challenges t......
- Jackson v. Wylie-Tunstall
-
Goncalves v. Goncalves
...96 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 946 N.Y.S.2d 876;Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 60 A.D.3d 658, 658, 874 N.Y.S.2d 237;cf. Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d at 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893). Here, the Supreme Court possessed adequate relevant information to make its determination, in which it adopted the tempo......