In re Anthony C.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06806,951 N.Y.S.2d 884,99 A.D.3d 798
Decision Date10 October 2012
PartiesIn 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)

99 A.D.3d 798
951 N.Y.S.2d 884
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06806

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)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 10, 2012.


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.

[99 A.D.3d 798]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, [99 A.D.3d 799]without a hearing, directed that he be temporarily removed from the home during the pendency of the proceedings, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027.

[951 N.Y.S.2d 885]

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).

ENG, P.J., RIVERA, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Burgess v. Burgess
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 10, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 27, 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 16, 2016
    ...to make an informed 27 N.Y.S.3d 246and comprehensive assessment of the child's best interests (see Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d at 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Matter of Johnson v. Alaji, 74 A.D.3d 1202, 1202, 902 N.Y.S.2d 410 ). Here, there was a lack of adequate relevant information......
  • Goncalves v. Goncalves
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2013
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Burgess v. Burgess
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 10, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 27, 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 16, 2016
    ...to make an informed 27 N.Y.S.3d 246and comprehensive assessment of the child's best interests (see Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d at 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Matter of Johnson v. Alaji, 74 A.D.3d 1202, 1202, 902 N.Y.S.2d 410 ). Here, there was a lack of adequate relevant information......
  • Goncalves v. Goncalves
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2013
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT