Opinion
2022–08736 Docket Nos. N–1084–18, 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 (Jason S. Whitehead 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 (Jason S. Whitehead 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 (Meryl H. Guzman, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 13, 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.