Matter of Kale F.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation703 N.Y.S.2d 783,269 A.D.2d 832
PartiesIn the Matter of KALE F., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.<BR>STEUBEN COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent.
Decision Date16 February 2000

269 A.D.2d 832
703 N.Y.S.2d 783

In the Matter of KALE F., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
STEUBEN COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent.

Decided February 16, 2000.


Present — Wisner, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum:

Respondent appeals from an order of disposition that placed him in the custody of the Steuben County Department of Social Services for a 14-month period, until August 30, 1999. That order expired and the appeal is

[269 A.D.2d 833]

moot (see, Matter of Michael OO., 267 AD2d 638; Matter of Alice P., 254 AD2d 770). This appeal fails to satisfy the "three critical conditions to the mootness exception" (Matter of Chenier v Richard W., 82 NY2d 830, 832; see also, Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Ford, 92 NY2d 500, 505-506; but see, Matter of Jennifer B., 256 AD2d 1195), and there is no indication in the record that respondent is still being affected by that order (see, Matter of Chenier v Richard W., supra, at 832). Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • In re Sysamouth D.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 28, 2012
    ...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 conte......
  • In re Lenores S.M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...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. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).It is h......
  • Lenores S.M. v.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...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. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). It is hereby O......
3 cases
  • In re Sysamouth D.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 28, 2012
    ...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 conte......
  • In re Lenores S.M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...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. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).It is h......
  • Lenores S.M. v.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 13, 2015
    ...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. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). It is hereby O......

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