In re Raquel ZZ

Full title: In the Matter of Raquel ZZ., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Sullivan…

Court: Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 5, 2022

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3035 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

532993

05-05-2022

In the Matter of Raquel ZZ., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Angel ZZ., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Raquel ZZ., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Noreen ZZ., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for Angel ZZ., appellant. Ivy M. Schildkraut, Rock Hill, for Noreen ZZ., appellant. Michael F. McGuire, County Attorney, Monticello (Kristin L. Hackett of counsel), for respondent. Marcia Heller, Rock Hill, attorney for the child.

Pritzker, J.

Calendar Date: March 21, 2022.

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for Angel ZZ., appellant.

Ivy M. Schildkraut, Rock Hill, for Noreen ZZ., appellant.

Michael F. McGuire, County Attorney, Monticello (Kristin L. Hackett of counsel), for respondent.

Marcia Heller, Rock Hill, attorney for the child.

Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

Pritzker, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Meddaugh, J.), entered February 19, 2021, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, removed the subject child from respondents' care.

Respondent Angel ZZ. and respondent Noreen ZZ. are the parents of the subject child (born in 2006). In February 2021, petitioner filed neglect petitions against respondents. Following a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1027, Family Court issued an order for temporary removal of the child to petitioner's custody. Respondents appeal.

While this appeal was pending, in February 2022, Family Court issued an order finding that respondents neglected the child. After a dispositional hearing in March 2022, the court continued the placement of the child. In view of the foregoing, respondents' appeal from the February 2021 order is moot, and it does not fall into the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Journi PP. [Steffen PP.], 194 A.D.3d 1222, 1222 [2021]; Matter of Jadalynn HH. [Roy HH.], 135 A.D.3d 1089, 1089 [2016]).

Garry, P.J., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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