Niagara Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Lynn H. (In re Angel C.)

• Decision Date: 08 February 2013
• Citation: 103 A.D.3d 1246,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00852,958 N.Y.S.2d 921
• Parties: In the Matter of ANGEL C., Dorrance C., Jr., Leta C. and Michael C. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Lynn H., Respondent–Appellant, and Dorrance C., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 1246

958 N.Y.S.2d 921

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00852

In the Matter of ANGEL C., Dorrance C., Jr., Leta C. and Michael C. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Lynn H., Respondent–Appellant, and Dorrance C., Respondent.

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

Feb. 8, 2013.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (John F. Batt, J.), entered August 9, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order denied the application of respondent Lynn H. for the return of the subject children who were temporarily removed from her custody.

Patricia M. McGrath, Lockport, for Respondent–Appellant.

Laura A. Wagner, Lockport, for Petitioner–Respondent.

Stephen C. Kennedy, Attorney for the Children, Lockport, for Angel C., Dorrance C., Jr., Michael C. and Leta C.

MEMORANDUM:

Respondent mother appeals from an order that denied her application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for the return of her children to her care and custody following their temporary removal pursuant to a prior order of Family Court. We dismiss the appeal because a final order of disposition was entered during the pendency of the appeal, finding that the children are neglected and placing them in petitioner's custody, and thus the appeal has been rendered moot ( see Matter of Melody B., 234 A.D.2d 1005, 1005, 651 N.Y.S.2d 810,lv. dismissed90 N.Y.2d 888, 661 N.Y.S.2d 832, 684 N.E.2d 282;see *922generally Matter of Kiearah P., 46 A.D.3d 958, 959, 846 N.Y.S.2d 774;Matter of Nicholas B., 26 A.D.3d 764, 764, 811 N.Y.S.2d 235). We note in any event that the appeal is moot for the further reason that the order of disposition expired and the children were returned to the mother's custody during the pendency of this appeal ( see Kiearah P., 46 A.D.3d at 959, 846 N.Y.S.2d 774;Matter of Javier R. [Robert R.], 43 A.D.3d 1, 3, 840 N.Y.S.2d 572). Contrary to the mother's contention, this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876;Matter of Gannett Co., Inc. v. Doran, 74 A.D.3d 1788, 1789, 903 N.Y.S.2d 634). The mother contends on appeal that the court lacked an adequate basis for denying her Family Court Act § 1028 application. There is no likelihood of repetition with respect to that issue because, although there may be additional Family Court Act § 1028 hearings with respect to this family ( see generally§ 1028[a] ), the circumstances to be addressed in each application are...