In re Stanley F.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2010
• Citation: 76 A.D.3d 1067,907 N.Y.S.2d 882
• Parties: In the Matter of STANLEY F. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

907 N.Y.S.2d 882
76 A.D.3d 1067

In the Matter of STANLEY F. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

Sept. 28, 2010.

Emmanuel Ntiamoah, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.

76 A.D.3d 1067

In a juvenile delinquency

76 A.D.3d 1068

proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated June 11, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 2, 2009, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 2, 2009.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs and disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired ( see Matter of Vanna W., 45 A.D.3d 855, 846 N.Y.S.2d 354; Matter of Sydney N., 42 A.D.3d 539, 840 N.Y.S.2d 128; Matter of Christian M., 37 A.D.3d 834, 831 N.Y.S.2d 247). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of

907 N.Y.S.2d 883

delinquency, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent and which brings up for review the fact-finding order, has not been rendered academic ( see Family Ct. Act. § 783; Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621; Matter of Summer D., 67 A.D.3d 1008, 890 N.Y.S.2d 562; Matter of Davonte B., 44 A.D.3d 763, 844 N.Y.S.2d 68), we find that it...