Opinion
2012-10-10
In the Matter of ANTHONY C. (Anonymous), appellant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Juan C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Anthony C. (Anonymous), appellant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Maria V. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
Elizabeth M. Niemi, Amityville, N.Y., attorney for the child, the appellant Anthony C. Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Elizabeth M. Niemi, Amityville, N.Y., attorney for the child, the appellant Anthony C. Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Margaret Schaefler, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent-respondent Juan C.
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for respondent—respondent Maria V.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Anthony C. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Loguercio, J.), dated January 21, 2011, as, without a hearing, directed that he be temporarily removed from the home during the pendency of the proceedings, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal must be dismissed, since the portion of the order that is appealed from, which directed the temporary removal of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, has been rendered academic, in light of a subsequent permanency order dated October 17, 2011, continuing the placement of the child, and the orders of disposition dated November 1, 2011 ( see Matter of Jovan W. v. Ticarrah W.P., 92 A.D.3d 888, 889, 939 N.Y.S.2d 863;Matter of Nicholas B., 26 A.D.3d 764, 811 N.Y.S.2d 235;Matter of Jabarry W., 24 A.D.3d 218, 219, 804 N.Y.S.2d 922;see also Matter of Javier R., 43 A.D.3d 1, 840 N.Y.S.2d 572). Contrary to the appellant's contention, this matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).