From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrea S. v. Paul Y.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Jun 20, 2024
212 N.Y.S.3d 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

06-20-2024

In the Matter of ANDREA S., Petitioner–Appellant, v. PAUL Y., et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Rhea G. Friedman, New York, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.


Rhea G. Friedman, New York, for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.

Oing, J.P., Friedman, González, Rodriguez, O’Neill Levy, JJ.

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about October 21, 2021, which dismissed with prejudice petitioner grandmother’s petitions for custody of her grandchildren, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The grandmother concedes that her appeal from the order dismissing her petitions for custody of her grandchildren is moot given that the children have been adopted by their long-term foster parents (see Matter of Sandra M. v. Che M., 204 A.D.3d 491, 164 N.Y.S.3d 452 [1st Dept. 2022]; see also Matter of LaJuan M. v. Administration for Children’s Seros., 220 A.D.3d 420, 421, 197 N.Y.S.3d 145 [1st Dept. 2023]).

The grandmother’s request, in reply, that we remand for a new hearing on the issue of visitation, rather than custody, is unpreserved for review and we decline to reach it, given that a request could have been timely asserted in the context of this pending custody proceeding (see Matter of Erdey v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 546, 546–547, 11 N.Y.S.3d 592 [1st Dept. 2015]). At the time of the custody hearing, termination of parental rights proceedings were pending as to two of the children and the grandmother had declined to have supervised or monitored visitation with the children.

We have considered the grandmother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Andrea S. v. Paul Y.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Jun 20, 2024
212 N.Y.S.3d 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Andrea S. v. Paul Y.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDREA S., Petitioner–Appellant, v. PAUL Y., et al.…

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: Jun 20, 2024

Citations

212 N.Y.S.3d 81 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)