Opinion
April 4, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court of Chenango County (Dowd, J.).
When this matter was previously before us, we considered and rejected respondent's argument that Family Court had erred in failing to hold a more comprehensive dispositional hearing ( see, Matter of Randy SS., 222 A.D.2d 884). Nevertheless, because the court had not specified the reasons for its disposition, we were constrained by Family Court Act § 754 (2) to remit the matter for that purpose.
An amended order has since been entered, setting forth the court's reasons for placing respondent with the Department of Social Services. In the interim, however, the original placement expired and apparently was not extended. Inasmuch as the original appeal was taken from the disposition only — not from the determination that respondent was a person in need of supervision — respondent concedes that the appeal is now moot, and we concur ( see, Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 A.D.2d 651, 653, affd 87 N.Y.2d 1009; Matter of Eric O., 205 A.D.2d 878).
Cardona, P.J., White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.