Opinion
2016–01371 Docket No. N–30634–14
12-27-2017
In the MATTER OF HANNAH T.R. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Soya R. (Anonymous), appellant.
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng and Carolyn Walther of counsel), for respondent. Cheryl S. Solomon, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child.
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng and Carolyn Walther of counsel), for respondent.
Cheryl S. Solomon, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated January 5, 2016. The permanency hearing order, after a permanency hearing, continued the temporary removal of the subject child until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court and directed that the mother have supervised visitation with the subject child, among other things. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that counsel's application to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal is denied as academic.
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 wherein the subject child had been removed from the mother's custody based upon allegations of neglect, a permanency hearing was held on January 5, 2016, and the Family Court issued a permanency hearing order the same day, which order is the subject of this appeal. The next permanency hearing was held and a permanency hearing order was issued on November 29, 2016, which continued the same permanency goal, the child's placement, and supervised visitation between the mother and child set forth in the January 5, 2016, permanency hearing order. The mother has not appealed from the November 29, 2016, permanency hearing order.
The mother's appeal from the permanency hearing order dated January 5, 2016, must be dismissed as academic, since that order was superseded by the November 29, 2016, permanency order from which no appeal has been taken (see Matter of Agam B. [Janna W.], 143 A.D.3d 702, 702–703, 38 N.Y.S.3d 591 ; Matter of Serena H. [Melanie F.], 141 A.D.3d 522, 33 N.Y.S.3d 905 ; Matter of Davin V. [Davida V.V.], 133 A.D.3d 770, 19 N.Y.S.3d 190 ; Matter of Jaiden S. [Lourdes G.], 119 A.D.3d 806, 989 N.Y.S.2d 294 ). We therefore deny, as academic, counsel's application to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute the appeal from the permanency hearing order dated January 5, 2016 (see Matter of Hannah T.R. [Soya R.], 149 A.D.3d 957, 958, 52 N.Y.S.3d 406 ; Matter of Kaci C. [John C.], 136 A.D.3d 674, 674, 23 N.Y.S.3d 909 ).
RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.