In re Sysamouth D.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation951 N.Y.S.2d 424,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06482,98 A.D.3d 1314
Decision Date28 September 2012
PartiesIn the Matter of SYSAMOUTH D., Respondent–Appellant. Oneida County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent.

98 A.D.3d 1314
951 N.Y.S.2d 424
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06482

In the Matter of SYSAMOUTH D., Respondent–Appellant.
Oneida County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent.

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

Sept. 28, 2012.


Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered October 27, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, inter alia, placed respondent with the Office of Children and Family Services through April 26, 2012.
William L. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica, for Respondent–Appellant.

Gregory J. Amoroso, County Attorney, Utica (Raymond F. Bara of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.


MEMORANDUM:

Respondent appeals from an order of disposition that, inter alia, placed him in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services through April 26, 2012. According to respondent, Family Court deprived him of his equal protection and due process rights as well as his rights pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 352.2 and 353.3 in determining placement, and the court assumed a prosecutorial role with respect thereto. We dismiss as moot respondent's appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement inasmuch as the period of placement has expired ( see Matter of Haley M.T., 96 A.D.3d 1549, 1549, 947 N.Y.S.2d 257;Matter of Julia R., 52 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 860 N.Y.S.2d 362,lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 709, 868 N.Y.S.2d 601, 897 N.E.2d 1085). Respondent's contentions with respect to placement do not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783;see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). Respondent's contention that his admission was insufficient because the court did not follow certain requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 321.3 is not moot “because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency” (Matter of Stanley F., 76 A.D.3d 1069, 1069, 908 N.Y.S.2d 127). We conclude, however, that it lacks merit ( see Matter of William VV., 42 A.D.3d 710, 711–712, 839 N.Y.S.2d 614).

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.

SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, LINDLEY, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Alvin H. v. Onondaga Cnty. Attorney, 535
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 3, 2022
    ...dispositional hearing. We dismiss the appeal as moot inasmuch as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Sysamouth D. , 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 [4th Dept. 2012] ; Matter of Kale F. , 269 A.D.2d 832, 832-833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783 [4th Dept. 2000] ) and, to the extent th......
  • In re Celina D.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...is not moot " ‘because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency’ " (Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; see Matter of Gabriela A., 23 N.Y.3d 155, 161 n. 2, 989 N.Y.S.2d 624, 12 N.E.3d 1054 ). We further note that respon......
  • In re Lenores S.M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...respondent's one-year placement has expired, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; 999 N.Y.S.2d 921Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Cly......
  • Lenores S.M. v.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...respondent's one-year placement has expired, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424; [999 N.Y.S.2d 921] Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Alvin H. v. Onondaga Cnty. Attorney, 535
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 3, 2022
    ...dispositional hearing. We dismiss the appeal as moot inasmuch as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Sysamouth D. , 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 [4th Dept. 2012] ; Matter of Kale F. , 269 A.D.2d 832, 832-833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783 [4th Dept. 2000] ) and, to the extent th......
  • In re Celina D.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...is not moot " ‘because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency’ " (Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; see Matter of Gabriela A., 23 N.Y.3d 155, 161 n. 2, 989 N.Y.S.2d 624, 12 N.E.3d 1054 ). We further note that respon......
  • In re Lenores S.M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...respondent's one-year placement has expired, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; 999 N.Y.S.2d 921Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Cly......
  • Lenores S.M. v.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...respondent's one-year placement has expired, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 951 N.Y.S.2d 424; [999 N.Y.S.2d 921] Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. C......
  • 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