Opinion
2022–02833 Docket Nos. N–10484–18, N–10485–18
10-11-2023
In the MATTER OF JOSHUA J. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Tameka J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Christopher J. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Tameka J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant. John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, NY (David H. Chen of counsel), for respondent. William E. Horwitz, Briarcliff Manor, NY, attorney for the child Joshua J. Joan Iacono, Scarsdale, NY, attorney for the child Christopher J.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant.
John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, NY (David H. Chen of counsel), for respondent.
William E. Horwitz, Briarcliff Manor, NY, attorney for the child Joshua J.
Joan Iacono, Scarsdale, NY, attorney for the child Christopher J.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene Gordon–Oliver, J.), dated March 25, 2022. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, continued the subject children's placement until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's appeal from the permanency hearing order, which, among other things, continued the children's placement until completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court, must be dismissed as academic, as the permanency hearing order has expired (see Matter of Peter T. [Shay S.P.], 173 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 100 N.Y.S.3d 914 ; Matter of Victoria B. [Jonathan M.], 164 A.D.3d 578, 580, 82 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; Matter of Jayline J. [Jarren J.], 156 A.D.3d 701, 701, 64 N.Y.S.3d 916 ).
Contrary to the mother's contention, this case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).
IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, VOUTSINAS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to strike the respondent's brief on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated March 25, 2022, on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 13, 2023, that branch of the motion which was to strike the respondent's brief on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike the respondent's brief on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record is denied.