Opinion
2017–10802 Docket No. S–4503–16
01-30-2019
In the MATTER OF VICTOR M. (Anonymous), Appellant.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant. James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Victor A. Civitillo of counsel), for respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant.
James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Victor A. Civitillo of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, Victor M. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated September 14, 2017. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, adjudged the appellant to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed Victor M. on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition that placed the appellant on probation under the supervision of the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections for a period of 12 months has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from that portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Alexandria P., 166 A.D.3d 781, 85 N.Y.S.3d 787 ; Matter of Shakeel Mc., 67 A.D.3d 913, 888 N.Y.S.2d 422 ).
We agree with the Family Court's determination that the appellant is a person in need of supervision. The presentment agency proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was habitually truant during the 2015–2016 school year by presenting the testimony of a school attendance teacher and the appellant's attendance records (see Matter of Alexander C., 83 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 922 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; Matter of Shakeel Mc., 67 A.D.3d 913, 888 N.Y.S.2d 422 ; Matter of Toni Ann O., 56 A.D.3d 563, 564, 867 N.Y.S.2d 504 ; Matter of Joel P., 16 A.D.3d 511, 512, 791 N.Y.S.2d 613 ). There is no basis to disturb the court's determination to credit the presentment agency's evidence and to discount the appellant's testimony (see Matter of Serenity S. [Tyesha A.], 89 A.D.3d 737, 738, 931 N.Y.S.2d 693 ; Matter of Shamasia M., 4 A.D.3d 359, 361, 771 N.Y.S.2d 541 ; Matter of Shena SS, 263 A.D.2d 809, 810, 693 N.Y.S.2d 313 ).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, HINDS–RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur.