From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Corey D

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 11, 2001
279 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 11, 2001.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered May 6, 1999, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to extend respondent's placement with petitioner.

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Alicia R. Ouellette of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


In October 1996, respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed with petitioner. Respondent's placement in this regard subsequently was extended to April 1999 and, prior thereto, petitioner applied for an additional six-month extension. Based upon the parties' consent, Family Court again extended respondent's placement with petitioner until October 1999. Respondent now appeals, contending that Family Court failed to make sufficient factual findings to justify the requested extension.

The record reflects that the order extending respondent's placement expired in October 1999, and the Attorney-General advises us that respondent was in fact released from petitioner's custody at that time. That being the case, the instant appeal is moot (see, Matter of Mark J. [Gibson], 259 A.D.2d 40, 43).

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Corey D

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 11, 2001
279 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Corey D

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of COREY "D", a Juvenile Delinquent. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 11, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 612

Citing Cases

In re Lasheim

On appeal, respondent argues that a hearing should have been held to determine if good cause existed for…