Opinion
No. 2302 Docket Nos. NN-05575/21 NN-05574/21 Case No. 2023-01526
05-16-2024
In the Matter of T.R. and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Jaquasia G., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
The Reiniger Law Firm, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Philip W. Young of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Polixene Petrakopoulos of counsel), attorney for the children.
The Reiniger Law Firm, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Philip W. Young of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Polixene Petrakopoulos of counsel), attorney for the children.
Before: Webber, J.P., Kern, Shulman, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.
Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2023, which, following a finding of neglect, temporarily placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The mother's appeal from the order of disposition is rendered moot by the fact that the order was superseded by a later permanency hearing order, which continued the children's placement in foster care and did not change the permanency goal of reunification with the parent (see Matter of Gabrielle N., 158 A.D.3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2018], compare Matter of Alexander L., 109 A.D.3d 767, 767 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1056 [2014]). Were we to consider the merits of the mother's appeal, we would find that the evidence established that the children's continued placement in foster care was in their best interests (see Matter of N.V., 203 A.D.3d 529, 529 [1st Dept 2022]).