Opinion
2012-06-15
In the Matter of HALEY M.T., Respondent–Appellant. v. PENN YAN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner–Respondent.
Susan B. Marris, Attorney for the Child, Manlius, for Respondent–Appellant. Dianne S. Lovejoy, Penn Yan, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Susan B. Marris, Attorney for the Child, Manlius, for Respondent–Appellant. Dianne S. Lovejoy, Penn Yan, for Petitioner–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from an order adjudicating her a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placing her in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of one year, respondent contends that Family Court failed to advise her of her right to remain silent at the dispositional hearing ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 741[a] ), that the order of fact-finding and disposition fails to comply with section 754(2), and that placement is not an appropriate disposition. Those contentions are moot because the placement order expired on March 7, 2012 ( see Matter of Todd B., 4 A.D.3d 650, 771 N.Y.S.2d 744;Matter of Shannon R., 278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 677), “and this matter does not fall within the exception[ ] to the mootness doctrine” ( Shannon R., 278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 677). Despite the expiration of respondent's placement, however, her challenge to the underlying PINS adjudication is not moot ( see Matter of Sonya LL., 53 A.D.3d 727, 728, 861 N.Y.S.2d 463).
Respondent further contends that the order should be reversed and the petition dismissed because the court failed to comply with Family Court Act § 742(b), which “require[s] the Court to review the pre-petition services” at the initial appearance (Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 29A, at 107; see also § 735). That contention is raised for the first time on appeal, and thus respondent failed to preserve it for our review ( see generally Matter of Alexander C., 83 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 922 N.Y.S.2d 186;Matter of Vanessa S., 20 A.D.3d 924, 797 N.Y.S.2d 683). In any event, respondent's contention lacks merit. The petition and documents attached thereto establish that petitioner complied with the substantive statutory requirements of Family Court Act §§ 732 and 735 ( see Matter of Mercedes M.M., 52 A.D.3d 1210, 1211, 859 N.Y.S.2d 550;cf. Matter of Nicholas R.Y., 91 A.D.3d 1321, 1322, 937 N.Y.S.2d 654;Matter of James L. [appeal No. 2], 74 A.D.3d 1775, 1775–1776, 902 N.Y.S.2d 487;Matter of Rajan M., 35 A.D.3d 863, 864–865, 826 N.Y.S.2d 720), and the court's comments at the initial appearance demonstrate that the court had reviewed petitioner's efforts to divert this case pursuant to section 735. Contrary to respondent's further contention, she received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Elijah D., 74 A.D.3d 1846, 1847, 902 N.Y.S.2d 736;Matter of Grabiel V., 59 A.D.3d 1132, 1133, 873 N.Y.S.2d 840,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 711, 2009 WL 1309352).
Respondent failed to take an appeal from the order settling the record, and her contentions with respect to that order therefore are not properly before us ( see Oubre v. Carpenter, 241 A.D.2d 964, 965, 661 N.Y.S.2d 346).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.